dittybopper: And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.
Triumph: [fc08.deviantart.net image 792x612]
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.
netgamer7k: (a. We threw Christianity out the window and embraced the Dollar,
Heraclitus: Wow, the butthurt in that article was palpable." We lost two elections to a Black Guy, so Democracy is Racist and we should never hold elections again (if theres a possibility we might lose)."Sounds like someone is afraid of getting their arses handed to them in the next election cycle.../ If you think Democracy is Evil, dont vote!
Satanic_Hamster: But what about all the times he said he thought Jim Crow laws should be legal.
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.
whidbey: o5iiawah: No surprise. You're a moron who doens't know what you're talking about and calling me at troll doesn't make you any less of a moron either..Amazing. How many times do I have to report this guy? I behaved civilly in this exchange.
GO fark YOURSELF, KENTUCKY.
animal color: Who let the farkin' Freepers in here FREEPS OUT?
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
physt: 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.[static8.depositphotos.com image 850x884]
ArkPanda: dittybopper: And had those blacks been armed, the KKK would have swiftly become history, and Jim Crow couldn't have taken hold.Because all the blacks would have been shot, and there would have been no need for either.
Hollie Maea: Alas, the US is no longer a Republic but has become a Democracy. The two reasons for this are: 1. With the House of Representatives membership capped at 435, each member represents many thousands of people. 2. The President has gained much power and rules like a monarch.
skullkrusher: Soup4Bonnie: Rand Paul believes that we don't need mine safety regulations because people wouldn't want to work in an unsafe mine.would you? No? QED then.
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.
dittybopper: HighOnCraic: 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.Still, it was the majority (Senators and House members from outside of the South) that used Federal power to end Jim Crow.And it was a majority that allowed it to stay for 100 years. What's your point?
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Aug 17 2017 02:30:32
Runtime: 0.367 sec (366 ms)