democracy is an ad populum

[forufes]

or is it not?

i'm not exactly willing to debate something here, it's just something that's been stuck in my head for sometime.

 

if you choose what the majority chooses, you're saying what the majority chooses is right. that's wrong of course. a handful of smart people are able to and should decide what's better for the rest.

 

iow, many people are like children, they need grownups to look after them and overwrite their "wants".

 

an experienced advisor shouldn't have the same voice as a cook or a cab driver.

[insane_alien]

politics isn't and doesn't claim to be a meritocracy (ruled by that which is best)

 

it is just a popularity contest, the voting public chooses who they want and the person that gets the most votes wins.

 

the world of politics is not a logical arguement therefore the fact that it is ad populum doesn't really make any sort of a difference.

 

if it was a logical arguement then being ad populum would be significant.

[ParanoiA]

That's how you create subjects and masters. Read a history book to rediscover how atrocious that works out.

 

Second, smart people can't define "good" any better than dumb people. Laws effect liberty and choices, and no one is fit to make "good" choices for me, but me. You can't. You can only make me make choices that are good to you. And that makes me suffer. And then that makes me buy a hatchet to kill you so I can have my freedom back.

 

An experienced advisor deserves no greater voice than a drunk bum sleeping in the gutter.

[forufes]

 

Second, smart people can't define "good" any better than dumb people. Laws effect liberty and choices, and no one is fit to make "good" choices for me, but me. You can't. You can only make me make choices that are good to you. And that makes me suffer. And then that makes me buy a hatchet to kill you so I can have my freedom back.

lol, ok look at it this way;

 

a drunk doesn't like pain, especially huge amounts of it, he also wants to live long.

he also likes to enjoy cheap beer.

 

now, if given the choice between getting liver cancer and dying early or living sober, he'd chose the latter.

 

however, not being aware of how they affect each other would result in him voting for one who allows alcohol to one who doesn't, albeit the latter being suitable more for him by his own standards.

 

that's where doctors come in as parents who say that candy is good but not worth the dentist's drill. democracy removes the parents and lets the kids vote..

 

maybe my examples are to an extreme but i'm sure you get the point:-).

 

the knowledgeable will not tell the commoners what is better and what is worse,they will not choose for them, rather they will help the commoners realize their own choices more realistically. like advisors or salespeople[yeah right:D]

[swansont]

Choosing along with the majority is only ad populum if you use the majority opinion as justification for your choice.

[forufes]

Choosing along with the majority is only ad populum if you use the majority opinion as justification for your choice.

 

which is what democratic countries do[?]

[jackson33]

forutes; In assuming your from the US and not trying to be confrontational, the US is simply not a democracy. Most of the founders hated the idea of majority rule, more specifically a majority of States consistency in control, basically setting up a Representative Republic, with State controlled and elected officials to represent the entire State and the idea that separating certain powers would prevent, domination on one branch over the other two.

 

if you choose what the majority chooses, you're saying what the majority chooses is right. that's wrong of course. a handful of smart people are able to and should decide what's better for the rest. [/Quote]

 

Maybe, maybe not; What ever State or possibly region of the US, especially Alaska or Hawaii, your ideas and opinions may be in line with the majority of that State, yet may be completely opposite most the others States. It's not really a smart/dumb thing, but what's best for your community, county, State or region and we each according to our State Laws elect those to represent those sentiments at the Federal level. The House Chamber of Congress, pretty well puts these principle on display, 435 representatives from the same number of Districts.

 

iow, many people are like children, they need grownups to look after them and overwrite their "wants".

 

an experienced advisor shouldn't have the same voice as a cook or a cab driver.[/Quote]

 

The problem here, is who decides which adults are childlike or rational beings. Again, a farmer in Ohio, may know a good deal about growing Corn, but have no idea how to run a Grocery Store, then running a Grocery Store in NYC or Buckholtz Texas would be very different. Does this help my explanations of District and/or State Representation a little better...The Federal Government WAS designed to represent and be the voice of as many of the total States (then to the people of those States), as possible, with respect to specified issues.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Pure democracy is pretty essential when you take the social contract view of government; if everyone voluntarily gives up rights to the government so it can act in their best interests, they naturally should have a role in making government decisions.

[jackson33]

Pure democracy is pretty essential when you take the social contract view of government; if everyone voluntarily gives up rights to the government so it can act in their best interests, they naturally should have a role in making government decisions.[/Quote]

 

CR; A couple things are confusing me; I'm sure you know the US is NOT a "pure democracy". Then if you voluntarily give up something, where would an implied right to affect that thing you gave up, come from? Your 'Social Contract' point is interesting and is often used by those believing in a 'Living Constitution', I'll try to address that to the thread...

 

 

 

It's been awhile since I've heard Social Contract and the US Constitution linked, however I would think if the Founders wanted a Democracy (they did not and this is not disputed*), there would have been limitations to State Rights over the Federal and where reality exist, limited Federal Authority, over the States.

 

Social contract describes a broad class of theories that try to explain the ways in which people form states to maintain social order. The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. It can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed.[/Quote]

 

As related to the States, noting States and people of, have the same meaning, under representation...

 

Definition: The idea of the social contract is one of the foundations of the American political system. This is the belief that the state only exists to serve the will of the people, and they are the source of all political power enjoyed by the state. They can choose to give or withhold this power. [/Quote]

 

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/g/social_contract.htm

 

No question, that when those 39 signers (55 Delegates) of the US Constitution signed and their States Ratified (all 13 did), they were agreeing to relinquish certain rights/powers, previously held by those States. However it was severely limited, particularly on Domestic Issues.

 

 

Remember the Original UNITED STATES, government was based on the "Articles of the Confederation", another social contract. A Confederation being a "union of political organizations/STATES. The second effort, produced a Republic with SEPARATE representation from each State, including the election of the President... still does under the electoral system today.

 

*While the Federalist and Anti Federalist argued over the strength of the Central Government, IMO none of them wished anything close to total control or what would be a pure democracy. I base this on the premise of the Bill of Rights, meaning to the States/People FROM the Federal and the listed limitation of Federal Responsibility/Powers/Authority, in the Constitution.

 

The Federalists, as a rule, were advocates of a strong central government. They were somewhat pessimistic about human nature and believed that the government must resist the passions of the general public. One of the government's prime functions was to maintain order. The Federalists tended to place their faith in the talents of a small governing elite.[/Quote]

 

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h445.html

[swansont]

Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

 

~Larry Flynt

[john5746]

or is it not?

i'm not exactly willing to debate something here, it's just something that's been stuck in my head for sometime.

 

if you choose what the majority chooses, you're saying what the majority chooses is right. that's wrong of course. a handful of smart people are able to and should decide what's better for the rest.

 

iow, many people are like children, they need grownups to look after them and overwrite their "wants".

 

an experienced advisor shouldn't have the same voice as a cook or a cab driver.

 

Handfuls of people(not always the smartest) decide many things. At least a person can have a very small say towards those who would represent them. Democracy of any form would work best with an informed and interested public, but that is usually not the case. In regards to children, they may require grownups, but if expect little of them, you will usually get little in return.

 

 

 

*While the Federalist and Anti Federalist argued over the strength of the Central Government, IMO none of them wished anything close to total control or what would be a pure democracy. I base this on the premise of the Bill of Rights, meaning to the States/People FROM the Federal and the listed limitation of Federal Responsibility/Powers/Authority, in the Constitution.

 

There were many things those people didn't wish for or think about. One thing I'm sure they knew was whatever they established would have to adapt to new challenges.

[jackson33]

There were many things those people didn't wish for or think about. One thing I'm sure they knew was whatever they established would have to adapt to new challenges.[/Quote]

 

John; Yes and "those people" designed a very simple procedure to effect that change, called the amendment process, by the way being ignored.

[rigney]

Without all of this fumbling around, we can always acquiesce to Anarchy. And if we get some of these guys in there, they'll get 'er done no matter what you want. Maybe that's what we need to straighten out this "kum bay ya" (B.S.) that we've been playing around with for the past fifty years? Well!, who knows?? Heck, we might even reveret back to some sort of a constitutional type government.

[john5746]

John; Yes and "those people" designed a very simple procedure to effect that change, called the amendment process, by the way being ignored.

 

When you reference "The Founders" you act as if they were one entity that agreed on everything written. I'm sure you would agree that this was not the case. They each had their own interpretation of each amendment, so why would we not expect this to continue, even accelerate as we move through time? While I agree that we could use some amendments to clear some issues, I think we can allow the experts to rule on complex issues without a connect the dot instruction book.

[jackson33]

When you reference "The Founders" you act as if they were one entity that agreed on everything written. I'm sure you would agree that this was not the case. [/Quote]

 

John; On what we call the 'Bill of Rights' I honestly feel the founders were in agreement on the limitation of Federal Power, over the States. I'll agree the degree of those limitations were different, but none of them, more importantly the State Legislatures they represented, would be the slightest bit happy, with what's been going on over the past 45 years.

 

As for my pride in what I accept as their accomplishments, is based on the now 220 year acceptance of 'an outline' for governing that has with stood several attempts to subvert, but to this day has been reinforced by the people and against that Government trying to subvert.

 

I agree that we could use some amendments to clear some issues, I think we can allow the experts to rule on complex issues without a connect the dot instruction book.[/Quote]

 

If you get down to the niddy-gritty, the Constitution itself is not hard to understand. What has complicated primarily the amendments, are societies/courts interpretations, laws/legislation of a few of the later amendments. As with any law or the Constitution, it's up to the society to accept of reject the general concepts, all well documents with 250 (Colonist ever further, than Franklin) years of written history/opinions and understanding of what was during our history. I guarantee you that written history is there, but if your under 40-45 years, most of that history has not been taught or distorted to meet certain agenda.

 

Aside from that, no amendment would have ever passed, much less been ratified, authorizing the establishment of any entitlement program/society and I doubt it would pass today, even with half of households receiving some form of those entitlements...Think about the fuss, over extending unemployment, which is already 99 weeks in many places, literally paying people NOT to accept a lessor salary, while the economy is weak, or millions of perfectly capable people on Welfare from accepting any job, or even a spouse, rather than working. We are creating a society dependency on Federal Assistance, now extending to Advanced Education, Health Care and no telling what all, if this nonsense continues.

[iNow]

If you get down to the niddy-gritty, the Constitution itself is not hard to understand.

I disagree rather strongly with your fundamental premise here. Let me explain why. If the Constitution were "not hard to understand," and if it were not subject to varying interpretation and differing views, then the founders would have no reason to build a Supreme Court directly charged with it's interpretation and enforcement as one of our three branches of government in place to check and balance the other two.

[jackson33]

iNow; While the Constitution is vague in many areas, it's thought this was intended to allow discussion and debate for change, as the Society itself changed and no one thought Society would not change. I differ somewhat in opinion, feeling to get agreement on any particular issue, the issue would be reduced in specificity, until acceptable to the majority. I've used this argument in reverse, where limitations on the Federal where precise, clear and unambiguous.

 

On separations; A primary duty of the Congress is to Legislate, basically unrestrained to current law and in fact produces many new laws each session. The executive then is to apply and enforce that law as it may see fit, but has other duties (initiate treaties/agreement) all of which are subject to both (Legislature/Executive) powers of oversight. The President can veto legislation, the Congress does not have to ratify a treaty and so on. To afford an independent power, the Supreme Court and Justices was set up to intervene/arbitrate on any disagreement (if requested), along with the absolute power/authority over any and all lower courts (State/Federal) on issue involving the Supreme Law of the land, the Constitution.

 

From here, Congress via representation from the people have always had the power over the all three branches, with in the amendment process. Once ANY amendment is ratified, regardless how the Constitution had been interpreted, that amendment becomes or replaces what was IN the Constitution. A good example of this would be the 17thA, where the founders intended the Senators would be chose by the individual State Legislatures*, solely reflecting the States interest (not necessarily the people), and changed.

 

Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. History

 

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.[/Quote]

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am11

 

*This would be another thread, but including myself, many have argued this amendment was in error and the results have made some Senators, based on tenure, too powerful in the operation of a multi State Congress. Said another way, a States ideology/sentiments can change (Legislature) but the Senators interest fail to represent their State.

[rigney]

I thought my approach to "Anarchism" on a jocular level might have cleared some heads, but evidently it did not. And since I simply haven't the depth of profundity or patience that some of you have, you'd best listen. We have created a multi-headed hydra, if you will, for what government was originally established to do. Yes, our forefathers had the good sense to realize even then that the masses needed to be protected from any kind of tyranny, especially a "Run Rampant" government that we have progressed into today. These past fifty years are the culmination of an abomination that has been festering since the Korean Conflict, ending in 1953. Subtle at first, but exponentially increasing in the sixties, it has now hit a stride, yet to slow down. We have quietly slipped into a "Welfare State" which has become virtually impossible to extricate ourselves from. Myself? I'm part of the problem as a Social Security reciprient! Can I do without it? Hell yes! But then, why? I worked a life time trying to save a few bucks for retirement. Now it appars that government wants every one to share in my damn work. Does this piss me off? Bet on it. I made this comment only days ago: When we finally get the playing field scraped to below basement level, then every derelict and piece of garbage imaginable will want to play our game. Just remember one thing, If you sow the wind, you will reap the whirlwind. We have done just that! And by the way, we no longer have three branches of government, we only have setting hen(s)!! Don't like what's happening, just "BITCH", someone will take care of it, and fix your bo-bo..

Edited July 6, 2010 by rigney

[DJBruce]

John; On what we call the 'Bill of Rights' I honestly feel the founders were in agreement on the limitation of Federal Power, over the States. I'll agree the degree of those limitations were different, but none of them, more importantly the State Legislatures they represented, would be the slightest bit happy, with what's been going on over the past 45 years.

 

Guess who this quote comes from:

 

Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

 

This quote comes from no one other than James Madison, in the Federalist Papers. By his eventual creation of the Bill of Rights it is obvious that Madison changed his mind. I do think that it points out however that it shows that the Framers, were not in perfect agreement on anything, including the Bill of Rights.

[iNow]

Guess who this quote comes from:

 

This quote comes from no one other than James Madison, in the Federalist Papers.

 

Specifically, Federalist #84.

 

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm

[rigney]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, "DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED", — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for "LIGHT AND TRANCIENT CAUSES"; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

 

We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

 

Only excerpts, yet very frightening! While we know the Declaration was drawn in defiance to the supressive rule of King George III, is it not too far removed from the affects of a government circumventing the will of a majority by clandestinely compomising, and/or enacting new laws to placate, light and trancient causes?

One way or the other, we should know this next November??

Edited July 7, 2010 by rigney

[ParanoiA]

No it's not too far removed at all. At this point, we won't get freedom and liberty back in this country without violence. Security in economics and terrorism have successfully duped the sheeple. Now they trade freedom for security like stocks on wallstreet and use appeals to complicated societal evolution as the excuse. A drunk empire drunk on empire.

 

I’m done entertaining moral busy bodies with the merits of my choices or justifying why freedom of choice should remain a key American value. The tree of liberty should be watered with the blood of traitors this time.

[rigney]

No it's not too far removed at all. At this point, we won't get freedom and liberty back in this country without violence. Security in economics and terrorism have successfully duped the sheeple. Now they trade freedom for security like stocks on wallstreet and use appeals to complicated societal evolution as the excuse. A drunk empire drunk on empire.

 

I’m done entertaining moral busy bodies with the merits of my choices or justifying why freedom of choice should remain a key American value. The tree of liberty should be watered with the blood of traitors this time.

 

After the Bill of Rights was enacted, everything else has been nothing more than redundancy, other than voting rights. "Which sure as hell should be taxed in every town, city and state".

 

A drunken Empeor, drunk on power? AD37-AD68. A serious, but anecdotal mirror image, AD2010-AD:?

 

The blood of traitors? I'm not sure that can be a fulfilling legacy. However, a good "Ass Kicking" from time to time always seems to "nettle" their attention. Just gotta do it right, and keep on "towing the line".

Edited July 7, 2010 by rigney

[jackson33]

Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government. [/Quote]

 

This quote comes from no one other than James Madison, in the Federalist Papers. By his eventual creation of the Bill of Rights it is obvious that Madison changed his mind. I do think that it points out however that it shows that the Framers, were not in perfect agreement on anything, including the Bill of Rights.[/Quote]

 

Bruce; I think you overlooked my comments on compromise to get an agreement of the majority, which was essential in getting SOMETHING to go forward with and getting ratification. As stated, IMO there were many differences (displayed in vagueness) with the exception of State Sovereignty.

 

 

Basically the Federalist Papers were a programmed campaign to sell the New Constitution, then primarily to NY, who were at that time anything but Federalist (Powerful/Strong Central Federal Government). While I do occasionally go over them and often will refer to them, I have a hard time accepting many comments, as anything other than a good sales pitch. Additionally Madison, a Virginian (where a good share of the 'BoR' came from*, State Constitution) and the second link you and iNow might find interesting on Madison himself...Who is it you think your quote was intended too?

 

 

The Federalist Papers were written in support of the ratification of the Constitution. While modern day readers might not see, the Constitution was a revolutionary step. In Philadelphia, the delegates rebelled against the existing Articles of Confederation and looked to the states, not the existing government, for ratification and approval of the new government. Because of the revolutionary nature of the new constitution, arguments were necessary to rationalize the response to the new emergencies....

 

Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York were the states critical to the success or failure of the Constitution. Of these four states, New York by far was the state where the success of the constitution was in the most doubt. The state's delegation did not approve the draft in Philadelphia because two of its three delegates left during the protest and abandoned Alexander Hamilton without a vote. Governor Clinton, the leading figure in New York politics, opposed the new government and New York had become an independent nation under the Articles of Confederation, making itself rich through tariffs on trade with its neighboring states.

 

Quickly, Alexander Hamilton decided that a massive propaganda campaign was necessary in New York, much more than in any other states. This new plan entailed a saturation theory, a sustained barrage of arguments appearing in newspapers four times a week. Because of the massive amounts of work, he decided that he needed two co-authors to help him write under the pseudonym of "publius." Although he originally had asked others to assist him in the project but luckily for him and future generations, James Madison, a Virginia citizen, was available because the Continental Congress was sitting in New York during that period...[/Quote]

 

http://www.gradesaver.com/the-federalist-papers/study-guide/about/

 

 

Madison was a devout Episcopalian who held very strong personal religious beliefs, in earlier years he advocated personal salvation and government promotion of Christianity, personal statements of faith by public officials, paid Congressional chaplains, and the use of federal funds for the printing and distribution of the Bible, in later years however, he may have backed down from this position of allowing the government to promote Christianity. [/Quote]

 

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/facts-about-james-madison.html

 

*You might like reading the "Virginia Declaration of Rights" (1776) to understand where much of the 'Articles of the Confederation', the 'US Constitution' and the 'Bill of Rights' came from...

 

The basis of the Bill of Rights (1791), an addendum to the , the Virginia Declaration of Rights was written by the colony's George Mason in 1776. Disturbed by various attempts by the British parliament to govern the behavior of the American colonists, Mason drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights. This document asserts the colonists' basic rights to life, liberty, and property. The document essentially justifies the colonists' quest for independence. Once the Virginia Declaration of Rights was approved, copies of the document made their way to all of the colonies and to the Continental Congress itself. Other colonial governments quickly followed Virginia's example, drafting similar versions of the document. In writing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson relied heavily on Mason's work. Many of Mason's ideas expressed in the Virginia Declaration of Rights found their way into the later U.S. Bill of Rights and France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.[/Quote]

 

http://www.milestonedocuments.com/documents/view/virginia-declaration-of-rights/

 

http://www.milestonedocuments.com/documents/full-text/virginia-declaration-of-rights/

[ParanoiA]

Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

 

Here, he makes the case for individual rights being inherent, and not something to be listed in detail - or enumerated. The case against a bill of rights was correct, and we have seen their fears come to pass.

 

We have repeatedly seen the lack of an enumerated right being used to justify federal expansion - like the healthcare bill. We also have seen conservatives try to use it for their moral legislation, like abortion.

 

There are better examples than those, much better, but I'm in a hurry to get out to lunch. The key point is that enumerated rights have been damaging to our rights that they didn't manage to think of and get written down, just as they warned. Enumeration became its own limitation.