Democracy is nothing more than a gang of bullies

Direct democracy would be mob rule. The world is ran by the elite and would never allow such a thing. Democracy in its current form is basically the elite getting whatever they want. If they can use the media to convince the majority to support what they want, then public gets what they perceive to want. If they can't, they do it anyway and claim it is one of those time that the elite know better, and are protecting the rights of minorities. I would rather have dictators than a ruling class. Dictators you can keep on assassinating until you find one who works. Ruling class means a bigger entity than any individual, with a life of its own.

 

And what is popular won't always be right. That's true. It isn't perfect.

But what's the better alternative?

 

A Republic. That's what you have now. For now anyway.

 

We are more democratic socialist at this point. Republic is representational, but generally fallows a capitalist system where anyone can make it to the top. That is why republics are better than social democracies. When people are allowed to vote, but the top is always the top and the bottom forever the bottom, that is socialism. Democratic socialism, but socialism all the same.

 

It's weird that rich people getting slightly less rich is the biggest injustice you could think of. But how does avoiding democracy actually help to prevent exploitation of anybody by anybody?

There are problems with democracy, obviously. That's why I think the constitution is a good idea. But I'm still not hearing an alternative.

 

But if it is thanks to the lack of democracy. :-S

 

It's a democratic republic.

Are you talking about direct democracy? Well ... I'm leaning in favor of that idea, but I'm not sure all the bugs are worked out.

 

well it has expanded to the government is in your wallet your pants and every room in your house and telling you how to raise your kids.

People actually think that is freedom. I mean that is some seriously good koolaid!

 

There is no limit to wealth. Just as there is no limit to free speech.

If I offered you a position to work for me for $2 dollars an hour would you take it?

There is no alternative. When the people can't decide on what is right or fair, they erected a dictator to decide for them. I'm pretty sure you don't want a dictator either.

 

It's a constitutional republic.

You gather everyone who thinks the same way you do and you start your own country.

That is the best chance to reducing any possible error.

 

Well if that were true none of the bailouts would have even happened.

At this point you are at a Oligarchy by now. None of the elites are listening to you.

 

If what was meant was the forcible redistribution of wealth as the means, the injustice is in the act of forcible redistribution, not the fact that they are less wealthy. Redistribution in some form or to some degree is the most common political action endorsed by the left. You should not be surprised that it is emphasized.

 

Good point.

 

They do not have to listen, art8 of the articles of confederation forward

 

that would be your own political group

only on paper not in reality

the oligarchy controls we have no say unless they get scared of the people tearing the place apart as that costs lots of money.

 

it never really has been.

the people never voted on the constitution you know.

We the People? or We the States?


Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788​

[FONT=&quot]. Patrick Henry's speech on June 4, 1788, was Henry's opening speech to the Virginia Convention that was debating whether to ratify the proposed new Constitution of the United States.

[/FONT]Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government. Give me leave to form one of the number of those who wish to be thoroughly acquainted with the reasons of this perilous and uneasy situation, and why we are brought hither to decide on this great national question. I consider myself as the servant of the people of this commonwealth, as a sentinel over their rights, liberty, and happiness. I represent their feelings when I say that they are exceedingly uneasy at being brought from that state of full security, which they enjoyed, to the present delusive appearance of things. A year ago, the minds of our citizens were at perfect repose. Before the meeting of the late federal Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and a universal tranquillity prevailed in this country; but, since that period, they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted. [FONT=&quot]


[/FONT] The present circumstances of France--the good offices rendered us by that kingdom--require our most faithful and most punctual adherence to our treaty with her. We are in alliance with the Spaniards, the Dutch, the Prussians; those treaties bound us as thirteen states confederated together. Yet here is a proposal to sever that confederacy. Is it possible that we shall abandon all our treaties and national engagements?--and for what? I expected to hear the reasons for an event so unexpected to my mind and many others. Was our civil polity, or public justice, endangered or sapped? Was the real existence of the country threatened, or was this preceded by a mournful progression of events? This proposal of altering our federal government is of a most alarming nature! Make the best of this new government--say it is composed by any thing but inspiration--you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise.



I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost.

I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people?

My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states?

States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states.

I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir,

I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information.

The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear.

It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. ~Partick Henry





The republic was detroyed with the creation of the states. All matters should be by court rulings not statutes. Statutes are roman civil and create a one shoe fits all scenario and is always extremely abused.

That is if you "consent" to be governed by the corporate state whish IS a "joint" commercial of the people, and should never have gotten to the point of God ruler.

 

That's what bugs me Koko. There is anti-federalist papers, as Patrick Henry was one, and they aren't considered law, but the federalist papers are considered law. The last thing those at the top want is 300 million Americans so bored they actually start learning stuff. They better turn the economy around fast.

 

Our country isn't a Democracy, it's a Republic, where everyone has a voice. That is why one person can change things against the wishes of many. Case in point, a cross on the capital grounds. One person can have that taken down even if ten thousand want it up.

 

You have no idea how many laughs I have gotten with that thought! LOL

Peop;le are starting to learn and I am shocked at the rate they are learning! Its a great time in history!

The amount of fraud perpetrated upon us is freaking unbelievable.

They even stole the 10 amendments and laid claim to them proof it is not the people at all but the government!

They reduced us in status from unalienable rights of man to contract priviliges under government as "subject-citizens".

The states claimed the rights to religion, free speech, liberty and pursuit of happiness as theirs NOT OURS!

 

everyone has a voice in a democracy too, so now what?

YOu cannot change anything they made a statute for. EXCEPT fighting it out in court. Now they passed over 1000 new laws in this state last year.

Care to tell me how we can sue fast enough to keep up?

 

agreed!

we have many variants of an "archy" most notable would be an oligarchy.

good point!


and to really shake everyones version up how about this from balcks law dictionary:

Now thats actually painful!

I dont think I am being extreme!



That means you can be a subject or a citizen or both in a republic!



​

 

Someone asked me what I would prefer, can anyone give me one reason why I would "Prefer" that [my last post] over a split system that insures the separation of commerce from the living as the king has?

You all realize its all about trusts and corporations. That is why they are called administrators? The democrats and republicans are all part of one gigantic corporate commercial model and it is their duty to administer the "trust" we call government.

Except we have been bread to worship the government.


ah I guess I must have asked some pretty good questions huh?

 

We live in a time where if people question propaganda on a couple of issues they are considered "nuts". You go into so much detail about things it simply paralyzes the programmed. LOL

 

But there are limits to free speech. Slander, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre -- basically, the really dangerous and irresponsible stuff. The same limitation seems reasonable in application to wealth.

That depends entirely on my other options. And what kind of work I would be doing.

No. So if the choice is democracy or a dictator ...? I think we both agree that democracy is better, right?

 

chavez is a dictator and after the cia ousted him the local people ousted the cia and put him back in.

now what?