If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The American Conservative)   RAND PAUL: "I'm not a firm believer in democracy. It gave us Jim Crow." Please wait until my huge bucket of popcorn is ready before posting   (theamericanconservative.com) divider line 255
    More: Interesting, Rand Paul, Jim Crow, Kentucky Senators, Mises, New Republic, historically black colleges, Jonathan Chait, Ayn Rand  
•       •       •

2078 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2013 at 4:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



255 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-24 05:06:29 PM  

jigger: The state governments weren't so weak that they couldn't oppress blacks. They had plenty of strength to do that. Don't you think if those governments had been weakened then freedom could have blossomed for blacks? And isn't that basically what happened? The Feds were able to weaken the state governments' power allowing blacks to become more free.


It wasn't just the state governments; it was also local governments and private actors such as the KKK, often intertwined with each other.
 
2013-06-24 05:08:13 PM  

Thoguh: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

Yeah, there is a reason we're a Republic, not a direct democracy.


I really wish people would stop making this dumb claim. You do realize that republic and democracy aren't mutually exclusive, right? The definition of republic is simply that the right to rule isn't hereditary (ie. not a monarchy). Therefore, all democracies are, by definition, also republics.

In my own personal experience, it is almost exclusively republicans that make this uninformed claim. My guess is because they like that republic is the root word for the name of their party, as opposed to democracy which sounds too much like dem libruls.
 
2013-06-24 05:08:26 PM  
I would love to have people ask him why thinks it was so wonderful for the federal government to step in against discrimination against blacks in state laws then but now he thinks that is federal over reach now for gays?

Answer: because he is full of shiat. If it wasn't political suicide today he would be supporting those segregation laws of the states still.
 
2013-06-24 05:09:02 PM  
In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them. Laws and the republic get in the way with that, especially with all these Constitutional "protections" and "rights" and other nonsense, like checks and balances, when inherently, we realize that true liberty comes from the heel of the boot of our betters who are free to do as they will with us, so long as we have the opportunity to do the same to others as long as it doesn't challenge their hegemony...

At least he's honest about it.
 
2013-06-24 05:09:10 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: jigger: The state governments weren't so weak that they couldn't oppress blacks. They had plenty of strength to do that. Don't you think if those governments had been weakened then freedom could have blossomed for blacks? And isn't that basically what happened? The Feds were able to weaken the state governments' power allowing blacks to become more free.

It wasn't just the state governments; it was also local governments and private actors such as the KKK, often intertwined with each other.


Ok.
 
2013-06-24 05:09:22 PM  

Triumph: spongeboob: Triumph: [fc08.deviantart.net image 792x612]

So you prefer what to Democracy then?

Constitutional republics?


It's a Benjamin Franklin quote, by the way. It's a pithy explanation of why you need branches of government, a constitution and a Bill of Rights before you can embark on democratic rule.
 
2013-06-24 05:09:56 PM  

WraithSama: In my own personal experience, it is almost exclusively republicans that make this uninformed claim. My guess is because they like that republic is the root word for the name of their party, as opposed to democracy which sounds too much like dem libruls.


Eh, Democrats also make it when it suits their purposes. People think it makes them sound smart.
 
2013-06-24 05:11:25 PM  

hubiestubert: In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them.


Subjugation and serfdom. It's what libertarians really want. You're about to blow open the whole conspiracy.
 
2013-06-24 05:12:01 PM  
Libertarianism: Private Property trumps Human Rights.
 
2013-06-24 05:14:03 PM  

jigger: hubiestubert: In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them.

Subjugation and serfdom. It's what libertarians really want. You're about to blow open the whole conspiracy.


It's not a conspiracy, it's their stated goals.
 
2013-06-24 05:15:37 PM  

jigger: hubiestubert: In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them.

Subjugation and serfdom. It's what libertarians really want. You're about to blow open the whole conspiracy.


Libertarians (at least ones of today) believer property rights are the most sacrosanct right there is. That's what they say.
 
2013-06-24 05:17:41 PM  

WraithSama: Thoguh: dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.

Yeah, there is a reason we're a Republic, not a direct democracy.

I really wish people would stop making this dumb claim. You do realize that republic and democracy aren't mutually exclusive, right? The definition of republic is simply that the right to rule isn't hereditary (ie. not a monarchy). Therefore, all democracies are, by definition, also republics.

In my own personal experience, it is almost exclusively republicans that make this uninformed claim. My guess is because they like that republic is the root word for the name of their party, as opposed to democracy which sounds too much like dem libruls.


QFT
 
2013-06-24 05:19:07 PM  

Corvus: jigger: hubiestubert: In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them.

Subjugation and serfdom. It's what libertarians really want. You're about to blow open the whole conspiracy.

Libertarians (at least ones of today) believer property rights are the most sacrosanct right there is. That's what they say.


Under a particular and fairly perverse capitalist conception of "property".
 
2013-06-24 05:20:50 PM  

Corvus: jigger: hubiestubert: In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them.

Subjugation and serfdom. It's what libertarians really want. You're about to blow open the whole conspiracy.

Libertarians (at least ones of today) believer property rights are the most sacrosanct right there is. That's what they say.


Truly, property is freedom. Unless of course, you happen to be a sharecropper, then property is binding, and until your debts are cleared, then you are essentially a form of captive labor, which is thus a commodity. It's not slavery, it's just a matter of enforcing debt payment, and I'm certain that no where in history can we find a single instance of anyone jiggering with such arrangements to make payment an impossibility, because corporations and businessmen are such upstanding citizens. You can tell that they're upstanding and moral by all the money that they have. Money flows virtue, and thus those who have the most money must be the most virtuous. STUDY IT OUT SHEEPLE!
 
2013-06-24 05:23:59 PM  

Corvus: jigger: hubiestubert: In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them.

Subjugation and serfdom. It's what libertarians really want. You're about to blow open the whole conspiracy.

Libertarians (at least ones of today) believer property rights are the most sacrosanct right there is. That's what they say.


Using property rights arguments is a way to communicate to certain types of people the ideas of individual liberty and freedom from coercive force. Some people do put ownership and property rights above all, so you can convince them to eschew the use of coercive force on others by reminding them that everyone is the owner of themselves and that you shouldn't infringe upon their property rights. Some of these people go on to continue spreading these ideas in this way. It's just one perspective from which to look at it.
 
2013-06-24 05:25:33 PM  

Corvus: jigger: hubiestubert: In fairness, most Libertarians are NOT fans of democracy. They are fervent believers in a NeoFeudalism that will give them sway over their minions, with local strongmen with enough economic and military power to force them to capitulate to their will, much as they hope to subjugate those around them.

Subjugation and serfdom. It's what libertarians really want. You're about to blow open the whole conspiracy.

Libertarians (at least ones of today) believer property rights are the most sacrosanct right there is. That's what they say.


Including their right to use property that doesn't belong to them, like the air and the oceans.
 
2013-06-24 05:27:27 PM  

Hetfield: SlothB77: democracy didn't give us that, a representative republic gave us that.

I'll never under why it's so popular on Fark to act like democracy and republic are mutually exclusive terms.


Because it's a popular meme among libertarians and right-wingers generally, none of whom are too fond of democracy, because the more people who get to vote, the more those people tend to vote that they should have rights too.   The idea that people who aren't white,straightm christian men of middle class or above have actual rights that people who do fall into those categories should recognize is anathema to them.
 
2013-06-24 05:30:54 PM  
That article was painful to read.

Rand Paul is the best politician to come along in my generation. I don't agree with all of his ideas, but he's a critical thinker and, I believe, an honest and moral man. We have three co-equal branches of government so Rand couldn't go running roughshod over existing bureaucracies.

He's brave for having said that to an all black audience. That's probably why most people cringe when he opens his pie hole - they cringe because they're scared on him.
 
2013-06-24 05:31:15 PM  

Karac: Neither of the Pauls are stopped clocks, right twice a day.  They're both clocks running backwards at irregular speeds which change at random intervals.  They're right on very random occasion one every few blue moons - but never for longer than one unit of Planck time.


Or, as I like to put it:

"Ron [or Rand] Paul occasionally arrives at the correct conclusion by starting with false premises  and applying logical fallacies."
 
2013-06-24 05:34:34 PM  

Corvus: Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.

Question: If he did, would that make the US a Democracy instead of a Republic?

You question makes no sense. ans has nothing to do with what I said.


Well my original statement said that SINCE the President rules like a monarch, that means that the US has become a Democracy instead of a Republic.  You noted that my premise was false.  I was just curious to know if you would agree with my conclusion if the premise were true.
 
2013-06-24 05:36:35 PM  

MJMaloney187: That article was painful to read.

Rand Paul is the best politician to come along in my generation. I don't agree with all of his ideas, but he's a critical thinker and, I believe, an honest and moral man. We have three co-equal branches of government so Rand couldn't go running roughshod over existing bureaucracies.

He's brave for having said that to an all black audience. That's probably why most people cringe when he opens his pie hole - they cringe because they're scared on him.


3/10
 
2013-06-24 05:39:55 PM  

Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.

Question: If he did, would that make the US a Democracy instead of a Republic?

You question makes no sense. ans has nothing to do with what I said.

Well my original statement said that SINCE the President rules like a monarch, that means that the US has become a Democracy instead of a Republic.  You noted that my premise was false.  I was just curious to know if you would agree with my conclusion if the premise were true.

No, if the president (a non-hereditary position) ruled like a monarch, the term for that is dictatorship or despotism, not democracy.
 
2013-06-24 05:41:10 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Libertarians (at least ones of today) believer property rights are the most sacrosanct right there is. That's what they say.

Including their right to use property that doesn't belong to them, like the air and the oceans.


And then they seem to omit the part about, just how massive would the state have to become to thoroughly protect all property rights, and how big would the court system have to be to process all the property-protection suits?  An odd oversight coming from a bunch of guys who want to shrink the government.
 
2013-06-24 05:42:41 PM  

Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.

Question: If he did, would that make the US a Democracy instead of a Republic?

You question makes no sense. ans has nothing to do with what I said.

Well my original statement said that SINCE the President rules like a monarch, that means that the US has become a Democracy instead of a Republic.  You noted that my premise was false.  I was just curious to know if you would agree with my conclusion if the premise were true.



If the President ruled like a monarch, that would be an Autocracy. But he doesn't, so it's not.
 
2013-06-24 05:46:25 PM  
Rand Pauls best friends
i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-24 05:46:34 PM  

Ishkur: Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: Corvus: Hollie Maea: 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.

Umm no he doesn't. It's not even close.

Question: If he did, would that make the US a Democracy instead of a Republic?

You question makes no sense. ans has nothing to do with what I said.

Well my original statement said that SINCE the President rules like a monarch, that means that the US has become a Democracy instead of a Republic.  You noted that my premise was false.  I was just curious to know if you would agree with my conclusion if the premise were true.


If the President ruled like a monarch, that would be an Autocracy. But he doesn't, so it's not.


Good point.  And other good point.

OK, fun's over:  I should point out that my original statement is a more or less word for word quote from an American "Thinker" article posted on here the other day.  Possibly the dumbest thing I have ever read.  I was curious to see how it would fare in the wild.
 
2013-06-24 05:47:42 PM  
Mrtraveler01:

3/10

I never troll. Ya betta ax sumbody.

Paul's trustworthy, too. I forgot to gush that particular sentiment.
 
2013-06-24 05:52:46 PM  

dittybopper: He's actually kind of right:  A democracy unbridled by strong individual rights applied equally can turn into a tyranny of the majority, and Jim Crow is a perfect example of that.


Exactly. If "democracy" is "majority rule", and the majority "rules" that minority races should not be allowed to have certain jobs, shop in certain places, or live in certain neighborhoods, then such a democracy easily leads to injustice. However, we are not allowed to admit to that, since it would violate the dogma of "democracy is an unmixed blessing, majority rule is always right". There are times when the majority is wrong. This is why we need to enshrine fundamental individual rights in such a way that it is very inconvenient to legally mess with them--even if the majority doesn't want to respect the rights of the minority.

Unconstrained democracy is simply another way to say "mob rule".
 
2013-06-24 05:52:59 PM  
Corvus: So then why are libertarians then only use this argument for Same Sex marriage and are pretty quite about it for none-same sex marriage.

I will tell you why, because it's a shame argument only made to justify a Libertarians who have intolerant  views.


Not sure if I that jumbled mishmosh of words qualifies as English, but I'll take a stab...

You think libertarians only take that stance on Gay marriage and dont care about hetero marriage?  You've obviously never heard of the flat/fair tax movement which many libertarians support.  The entire idea of libertarianism is an ideology of "Leave me the fark alone and I'll leave you the fark alone" so I'm not sure where you find some deep rooted intolerance there.

Perhaps you'd like to list a few well-known libertarians who are ardent supporters of laws which promote Judeo-Christian marriage
 
2013-06-24 05:56:45 PM  
The founding fathers also feared what they called "Mob rule"
 
2013-06-24 05:57:04 PM  
So democracy is added to  the list of things conspiring against the GOP?  I've read several articles complaining about democracy in the last few days from right wing sources.
 
2013-06-24 05:59:02 PM  

Tymast: So democracy is added to  the list of things conspiring against the GOP?  I've read several articles complaining about democracy in the last few days from right wing sources.


Democracy sounds like "Democrat".
 
2013-06-24 06:01:57 PM  
Well that settles it. Rand Paul is a Nazi.
 
2013-06-24 06:02:49 PM  
You know what else democracy gave us?

flcenterlitarts.files.wordpress.com

upload.wikimedia.org

Apparently, that product of democracy didn't bother Mr. Paul at all. In fact, I bet he longs to return to those days.

/Look at those mighty flag lapel pins. Those two are super patriots. I bet they went off and fought in Vietnam just for shiats and giggles....oh wait...
 
2013-06-24 06:03:28 PM  

Hollie Maea: Tymast: So democracy is added to  the list of things conspiring against the GOP?  I've read several articles complaining about democracy in the last few days from right wing sources.

Democracy sounds like "Democrat".


A friend of mine went into a long screed about this country not being a Democracy it's a REPUBLIC! the other day.  He was flummoxed when I posted the dictionary defintions of each and pointed out that the two are not mutually exclusive and that states like North Korea and Venezuala are also republics.  I then did a google search on the "democracy versus republic" meme and saw that of the thousands of entries they were about 99% from right-wing nutjob sites like WND.  These people are real deep thinkers.
 
2013-06-24 06:05:31 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: You know what else democracy gave us?


I didn't realize a Republican-leaning SCOTUS was considered a democratic-leaning institution.
 
2013-06-24 06:07:53 PM  

whidbey: TheShavingofOccam123: You know what else democracy gave us?

I didn't realize a Republican-leaning SCOTUS was considered a democratic-leaning institution.


If you got enough money....
 
2013-06-24 06:08:03 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: You know what else democracy gave us?

[flcenterlitarts.files.wordpress.com image 238x341]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x293]

Apparently, that product of democracy didn't bother Mr. Paul at all. In fact, I bet he longs to return to those days.

/Look at those mighty flag lapel pins. Those two are super patriots. I bet they went off and fought in Vietnam just for shiats and giggles....oh wait...


Yeah, "democracy", the guy that 500,000 fewer votes became president. Yippee!
 
2013-06-24 06:08:12 PM  

Hollie Maea: Tymast: So democracy is added to  the list of things conspiring against the GOP?  I've read several articles complaining about democracy in the last few days from right wing sources.

Democracy sounds like "Democrat".


Democracy is over-rated. I mean, really, "will of the people" what's up with that? Which people? Could the right people be assured that their will is carried out? Democracy is a real and tangible danger to the ascension of this nation, and it must be stopped.
 
2013-06-24 06:10:14 PM  

dittybopper: HighOnCraic: factoryconnection: HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.

Ah...


"The proposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 presented the libertarian wing of the conservative movement with a wrenching choice. Libertarians loathed segregation, but breaking Jim Crow would demand a sweeping expansion of Federal power that would intervene deeply into private life. The dilemma was that African Americans repression rose not only from government, but from the culture and personal choices of their white neighbors.
The Civil Rights Acts proposed to do something that libertarian ideology insisted was impossible -expand personal freedom by expanding central government power. Goldwater made a fateful decision to break from the core of the Republican Party and oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His decision alienated the black community and shone a glaring light on a fatal weakness in libertarian theory.
Libertarianism protects personal liberty from being impaired by government. It creates weak states on the assumption that without government intrusion personal freedom will blossom.
The black experience is a living reminder that government is not alone as a potential threat to personal liberty. It is possible, as in the Jim Crow South, to build a government so weak that no one's personal liberties can be protected."

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/01/how-libertarianism-failed-afr ic an-americans/

And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.


What makes you think that having guns = automatic win?

If the British had guns, America never would've won independence.

If the Confederates had guns, they would've won the Civil War.

If the Americans had guns in Hawaii, the Japanese never would've attacked Pearl Harbor.

If the Allies had guns, Operation Market Garden would've been a total success.

If the Nazis had guns, we'd be trading snarky comments in German right now.

If the Americans had guns, we would've easily won the Vietnam War.

Which makes me think, maybe if we'd brought some guns to Iraq and Afghanistan, things might've gone differently.I just hope that the NSA agent assigned to read this thread makes a note to advise his superiors that if we decide to get involved in Syria, we should probably bring some guns.We can't lose!

/I'll concede the point that using guns to defend your home from a night-time Klan raid is an effective plan; using guns to storm into the state legislatures and demand voting rights, not so much.King's tactic of non-violence into face of brutal retaliation shamed Congress into acting.
 
2013-06-24 06:11:59 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: You know what else democracy gave us?

[flcenterlitarts.files.wordpress.com image 238x341]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x293]

Apparently, that product of democracy didn't bother Mr. Paul at all. In fact, I bet he longs to return to those days.

/Look at those mighty flag lapel pins. Those two are super patriots. I bet they went off and fought in Vietnam just for shiats and giggles....oh wait...


What bothers me most about the stupid lapel pins is that they got Obama to wear one. Rather than saying "this is stupid, you're saying I don't love my country because I don't wear a lapel pin? Wouldn't a better expression of love for my country be volunteering, working hard, and ensuring a fair shake for all Americans? Doesn't the lapel pin seem trite and like lip-service? And there are plenty of instances where your guy didn't wear one either!"...

Rather than saying that, he wore a lapel pin. It really irritated me.
 
2013-06-24 06:12:11 PM  

Silly_Sot: Exactly. If "democracy" is "majority rule", and the majority "rules" that minority races should not be allowed to have certain jobs, shop in certain places, or live in certain neighborhoods, then such a democracy easily leads to injustice. However, we are not allowed to admit to that, since it would violate the dogma of "democracy is an unmixed blessing, majority rule is always right". There are times when the majority is wrong. This is why we need to enshrine fundamental individual rights in such a way that it is very inconvenient to legally mess with them--even if the majority doesn't want to respect the rights of the minority.
Unconstrained democracy is simply another way to say "mob rule".



What you are really talking about is Direct Democracy, which is not in practice in any nation in the world for exactly the reasons you describe.

What most European countries (and Canada and Australia) have is a Parliamentary Democracy: They vote for representatives, and the representatives come together to form parties and coalitions. But the mob does not -- and can not -- decide anything. It does not vote on specific bills or legislation and it does not elect the leader of the country (the majority party does that). Theoretically, the party in power ought to represent the mob's interests, but that's not guaranteed as the party in power rarely ever speaks for the mob or passes legislation in the mob's favor (at least, not all the time). It is an interesting buffer zone -- separation of the people from the powers -- that seems to work as a safeguard, however it can also produce tyranny of one-party rule (ie: Particracy, like in Mexico) if the party in power feels it is not beholden to anyone.

What America has is a Representative Republic which is closer to a Direct Democracy but not quite. The mob votes on specific legislation and the mob elects the leader of the country. By having a more direct link to the seats of power, the people have more control over the processes of government, but that also runs the risk of tyranny of the majority.

Either way, it is interesting to note that no system seems to be perfect and works the same way all the time forever. In fact, all systems seems to naturally gravitate toward oligarchy, and then autocracy, if given enough time.
 
2013-06-24 06:12:36 PM  

Marshal805: Libertarianism: Private Property trumps Human Rights.


Well put
 
2013-06-24 06:15:13 PM  
Jim Crow laws were passed by state legislators elected by white citizens (the ones who could vote, that is) who believed that segregation was mandated by Jesus Himself and that integration was a Communist plot to destroy America (or at least, that's the sort of propaganda they'd been fed for years by the White Citizens' Council newsletter and the National Review).Does anyone believe that, absent the Civil Rights Act, a free market would've magically appeared in the South where businesses would voluntarily integrate, and or that no one would burn down the first business to do so?
 
2013-06-24 06:17:13 PM  
So let's skip to the good part:

Who's voting for Paul in 2016? Or is that also democracy he doesn't support?
 
2013-06-24 06:17:59 PM  
Compartmentalizing Jim Crow is similar to compartmentalizing DADT, in the sense that they were wrong in and of themselves, but they happened to be steps towards something positive.

If he wanted to point out the problems with American democracy, he should have used Jim Crow as an example of how fear, bigotry, and greed make democracy too slow for the betterment of society, and too fast to f*ck it up.  But he's a myopic ninny, so we can't really expect much.
 
2013-06-24 06:18:59 PM  
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the democracy for which it stands; a Nation divisible with liberty and justice for some."

There we go! It's correctly rewritten for 2013.

I took the 'under God' thing out, because (a. We threw Christianity out the window and embraced the Dollar, and (b. this is a secular country and should stay that way.

Also added 'democracy' because people don't know what the fark a republic is, so screw that term.
 
2013-06-24 06:19:13 PM  

Ishkur: Silly_Sot: Exactly. If "democracy" is "majority rule", and the majority "rules" that minority races should not be allowed to have certain jobs, shop in certain places, or live in certain neighborhoods, then such a democracy easily leads to injustice. However, we are not allowed to admit to that, since it would violate the dogma of "democracy is an unmixed blessing, majority rule is always right". There are times when the majority is wrong. This is why we need to enshrine fundamental individual rights in such a way that it is very inconvenient to legally mess with them--even if the majority doesn't want to respect the rights of the minority.
Unconstrained democracy is simply another way to say "mob rule".


What you are really talking about is Direct Democracy, which is not in practice in any nation in the world for exactly the reasons you describe.

What most European countries (and Canada and Australia) have is a Parliamentary Democracy: They vote for representatives, and the representatives come together to form parties and coalitions. But the mob does not -- and can not -- decide anything. It does not vote on specific bills or legislation and it does not elect the leader of the country (the majority party does that). Theoretically, the party in power ought to represent the mob's interests, but that's not guaranteed as the party in power rarely ever speaks for the mob or passes legislation in the mob's favor (at least, not all the time). It is an interesting buffer zone -- separation of the people from the powers -- that seems to work as a safeguard, however it can also produce tyranny of one-party rule (ie: Particracy, like in Mexico) if the party in power feels it is not beholden to anyone.

What America has is a Representative Republic which is closer to a Direct Democracy but not quite. The mob votes on specific legislation and the mob elects the leader of the country. By having a more direct link to the seats of power, the people have more control over the pr ...


I'm a big fan of so-called "fluid democracy" which wouldn't have been possible before the advent of high-speed, widespread telecommunications, but would be now.

Basically, it works like this:
Each Representative represents, say, 100,000 people (it would be more, but that's a nice round number for explanatory purposes).
Each person in that Representative's district gets one vote on everything that comes up in Congress.
Every vote in Congress is open for a full 24 hours or something. Every registered voter in the country gets to vote on everything.
When a Representative votes, anyone in his/her district who didn't cast a vote has their vote default to that of the Representative - in other words, you trust your Representative to vote the right way on most things for you, but you can always override his/her vote if you want.

There are practical issues like national secrets and such and the infrastructure needed to do it, but the principle itself could work.
 
2013-06-24 06:19:29 PM  

jigger: HighOnCraic: factoryconnection: HighOnCraic: How the heck do laws passed in states where the vast majority of blacks and a sizable number of poor whites were unable to vote somehow exemplify democracy?

He's a southern white man with a libertarian bent; none of those realities actually occurred in his mind.

Ah...


"The proposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 presented the libertarian wing of the conservative movement with a wrenching choice. Libertarians loathed segregation, but breaking Jim Crow would demand a sweeping expansion of Federal power that would intervene deeply into private life. The dilemma was that African Americans repression rose not only from government, but from the culture and personal choices of their white neighbors.
The Civil Rights Acts proposed to do something that libertarian ideology insisted was impossible -expand personal freedom by expanding central government power. Goldwater made a fateful decision to break from the core of the Republican Party and oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His decision alienated the black community and shone a glaring light on a fatal weakness in libertarian theory.
Libertarianism protects personal liberty from being impaired by government. It creates weak states on the assumption that without government intrusion personal freedom will blossom.
The black experience is a living reminder that government is not alone as a potential threat to personal liberty. It is possible, as in the Jim Crow South, to build a government so weak that no one's personal liberties can be protected."

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2013/01/how-libertarianism-failed-afr ic an-americans/

The state governments weren't so weak that they couldn't oppress blacks. They had plenty of strength to do that. Don't you think if those governments had been weakened then freedom could have blossomed for blacks? And isn't that basically what happened? The Feds were able to weaken the state governments' power allowing blacks to become more free.


They were certainly weak in the "we don't care if local sheriffs take part in lynch mob violence" sense.  And they had enough control in Congress to make sure that the Federal government was too weak to intervene in that area.
 
2013-06-24 06:19:46 PM  

thamike: in the sense that they were wrong in and of themselves, but they happened to be steps towards something positive.

  part of a longer timeline that resulted in something better.

Rephrased, I guess.  You get my drift.
 
Displayed 50 of 255 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report