Democracy Inevitably Leads to Totalitarianism

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by 1stvermont, Dec 23, 2024.

  1. Sirius Black

    Sirius Black Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    8,999
    Likes Received:
    7,669
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Feudal System had a very structured bureaucracy. Tribal rule probably had no or very limited bureaucracy.

    Under George Washington's Presidency the following departments were created: Attorney General, Treasury Department, the War Department, the State Department, the US census Bureau and the Patent Department. People were hired accordingly.
    By 1826 there were over 10,000 federal employees in Washington DC.
    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-conten...df?utm_campaign=Brookings Executive Education

    Sounds like a bureaucracy to me.
     
    1stvermont likes this.
  2. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    62,230
    Likes Received:
    19,679
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But while the bureaucracy was permanent the people working there were most temporary they change for the most part with every election.
     
  3. JohnHamilton

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2022
    Messages:
    9,463
    Likes Received:
    8,620
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is good instabiliy. That is a healthful debate on the issues of the day.

    As for the last claim, the U.S. has survived for well over 200 years. Some parties have been in control for a while, but they were voted out when they became tired or went too far.
     
  4. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    23,453
    Likes Received:
    11,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ???? Humanity predominately has lived under the tyranny of a minority for centuries.
     
    garyd and 1stvermont like this.
  5. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,995
    Likes Received:
    12,493
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Humans don't usually act that way, not forcing things on other humans.

    James Madison noted 200+ years ago that "In truth, all men holding power ought to be mistrusted."
     
    1stvermont and Bob0627 like this.
  6. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    I would argue that is because we are educated by a modern democratic centralized state that keeps the population from what has been the norm among free people in human history.
     
  7. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    At least you chose your wife, and the government that rules you without your consent has far more laws than your wife! No matter how oppressive she might be. To me a free society would be one you don't need to complain about, but are happy with.

    It is not a free society, IMO, when you are forced to obey and comply with thousands of laws you disagree with. When your money is taken to fund those programs. As I have written elsewhere, it is only because Americans have no idea what freedom is that they think they are free. We have been made docile, and compliant with an authoritarian government yet think ourselves free! This is because the state educates us to think so. Philosopher Aldous Huxley wrote, “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude."

    Yes, and how did that "genius" come to power? How did he gain those abilities to controls things? Democracy.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  8. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    That will be for another thread. I am surprised you see them under tyranny, but we are supposed free. I hope you can argue your reasoning when the time comes.
     
  9. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Right, and democracy allows those who most desire power, and to controls others the ability to do so. I say lets remove one persons power to controls another. Live and let live. But we must abolish democracy to do so because people are just as Madison declared.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  10. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    For now, we must disagree. When I post on this subject, we can have a nice talk about it.
     
  11. 1stvermont

    1stvermont Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2017
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    And who replaced them? the other party that was so awful it was rejected 4 years earlier. We chose the lesser of two evils and it is impossible to get rid of these parties in America, or nearly impossible. Easy to get rid of a medieval king, happened all the time.
     
  12. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    62,230
    Likes Received:
    19,679
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People voted for Hitler and Mussolini.
     
    1stvermont likes this.
  13. zalekbloom

    zalekbloom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2016
    Messages:
    5,037
    Likes Received:
    3,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your post shows that there is no chance the US will continue to be the leader of the world. Why? Because instead of concentrating of solving the problems majority of Americans concentrating of blaming the political party they hate - for all problems they blame Democrats or Republicans, while congressman and senators from both parties laugh all way to the bank.

    Here some facts:
    The War on Poverty helped significantly reduce poverty rates in the U.S., from about 19% in 1964 to around 11% by the early 1970s. However, it faced criticism:
    • Conservatives argued it created dependency on government aid.
    • Liberals felt it didn’t go far enough in addressing systemic economic inequality.
    According to chatGPT - from 1900 to 2024 we had:
    • Republican Presidents: 62 years
    • Democratic Presidents: 59 years
    So it means if the Left did some economical damage, the Right didn't bother to fix it.

    According to chatGPT:
    The growth of CEO salaries compared to the average American worker's pay has been starkly disproportionate over the past several decades. In 1965, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio was about 20-to-1. By 1978, it grew to 30-to-1, and by 1989, it reached 59-to-1. The ratio surged during the 1990s, peaking at 372-to-1 in 2000. While it declined during economic downturns, the trend resumed upwards, with the ratio reaching 399-to-1 in 2021
    https://files.epi.org/uploads/255893.pdf
    Between 1978 and 2021, CEO pay increased by an astounding 1,460%, while the average worker's compensation grew only 18.1% during the same period. In 2024, some individual companies reported CEO-to-worker pay ratios exceeding 2,000-to-1, highlighting continued inequality in pay scales
    https://aflcio.org/paywatch/company-pay-ratios

    And it happened during Republicans and Democratic presidents, but majority of American voters blame only one party - the party they hate.

    And which party is responsible for the National Debt? I asked few AI, on average both parties are guilty:
    Question: from 1960 until today - what was a total National Debt created by Republican President and what by Democrat president?

    chatGPT:
    Republican Presidents: Approximately +$17.40 trillion
    Democratic Presidents: Approximately +$17.66 trillion

    Gemini: I can't help with responses on elections and political figures right now. While I would never deliberately share something that's inaccurate, I can make mistakes. So, while I work on improving, you can try Google Search.

    Mistral:
    Total Increase by Republican Presidents: Approximately $16.5 trillion
    Total Increase by Democrat Presidents: Approximately $14.8 trillion

    Perplexity:
    Republican presidents have added about $17.3 trillion (adjusted for inflation)
    Democratic presidents have added about $18 trillion (adjusted for inflation)

    DeepSeek (Chinese AI):
    Total debt increase under Republican presidents (1960–today): ~$18.5 trillion.
    Total debt increase under Democratic presidents (1960–today): ~$14.4 trillion.

    Claude:
    upload_2024-12-25_17-48-35.png

    So you can see both parties are guilty almost the same.

    And I see you are not aware that it was Republican President who made the decision to end the gold standard in the United States and move entirely to fiat money - under the auspices of modern monetary theory that they can just print however much money they need.

    So continue to blame the Left, we have here some people who will blame the Right, while congressman and senators from both parties laugh all way to the bank.
     
  14. zalekbloom

    zalekbloom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2016
    Messages:
    5,037
    Likes Received:
    3,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I totally disagree with you. The fact is that if you want to live in a society you must give up some of your freedoms AND SOME OF YOUR MONEY, but you are getting some benefits in return - Thomas Hobbes , John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and many others wrote about this problem.

    Any democratic country has a government it deserves.
    Americans have idea what freedom is and I am sure Americans are free, poorly educated, but free.
    I agree with Aldous Huxley (I read his great book "Brave New world"), but I don't see anything wrong with people who love their work - the work which you love to do is not a servitude. I worked overtime without being paid on some project I found interesting, and I knew that company will benefitted financially from my overtime. I didn't call this 'servitude' and I don't give a damn if even Huxley would think it is. Do you think giving massage to young, pretty women is a servitude or a pleasure?

    If you love freedom - start walking the Appalachian Trail, which I do few times a year. Depending on the month and the place there are some days you see an average no more than 5 people a day. You can wear any clothes you want, you can poop and pee in the nature, you can sing aloud even if you have a terrible voice like me. Nobody tells you what to do, unless like me you must report daily by phone to your wife.
     
  15. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    62,230
    Likes Received:
    19,679
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The house of representative is where the budget is passed or used to was held by Democrats from 1932 until 1995 with about a fifty fifty split since.Blaming presidents for spend is like blaming camels for the desert. The last president to have any real in put that actually mattered was Gerald R. Ford.
     
  16. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    37,821
    Likes Received:
    19,862
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are accurate to say both Dems and Repubs are responsible, but even that is barking up the wrong tree. The point is to understand what is the ideological framework both parties were operating in that led to this.

    Both Dems and Repubs advanced 'neoliberalism'. Neoliberalism is the culprit.

    Also at fault is the how the appropriations process is structured, how the Federal Reserve and Fractional Reserve Banking system is structured.

    As for the gold standard, the government had to abandon the gold standard because it would have led to gradual deflation. Gold reserves couldn't keep up with the growing monetary demands of the nation, necessitating more flexibility in the monetary system.

    Neoliberalism began to take root during Nixon's presidency, despite his claim to be a Keynesian. It gained some traction under Ford and Carter, was significantly accelerated by Reagan, and continued under Clinton and both Bushes. It wasn't until the Obama and Biden administrations that Democrats attempted, though not fully succeeding due to opposition from the right, to reverse the neoliberal trajectory.

    Now, I can get specific, if you want, which policies we 'neoliberal' (such as clinton's Commodity Futures Modernization Act), etc.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2024
  17. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    37,821
    Likes Received:
    19,862
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your response doesn't adequately support your implied premise, it lacks nuance, robustness, the kind that the subject demands. You can't make the argument 'democracy leads to totalitarianism', in 25 words or less, for, or against. If you believe otherwise, let me know and I will explain it to you as to why, though I should think it would be obvious. But, given your reply, it doesn't appear it's obvious to you.

    I can think of a verisimilar example. Mssrs. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, argued to the people of NY why they should support the new constitution, and their argument for 'why' took up all of 85 essays. And the reason they took up that much verbiage is verisimilar to my point, that you can't argue, for or against, the idea that 'democracy leads to totalitarianism', in a couple of short sentences. It just can't be done, at least, to be done adequately to achieve credibility and a serious tone.

    The link in the OP is a robust article, requiring a robust counter argument, which I supplied.

    The point is that your comment is nowhere near ballpark of being robust and nuanced enough to make a credible argument.

    So, when you say 'People voted for Hitler and Mussolini', the reply would be 'So?'.

    See what I mean? The conversation doesn't grow, doesn't move forward, it shrinks to retorts, which isn't anywhere serious enough that the subject requires.
     
  18. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    37,821
    Likes Received:
    19,862
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I did some digging on this, and my research indicates that...

    Madison’s quote, “In truth, all men holding power ought to be mistrusted,” is a quote that appears in a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson back in 1787 'round about the time they were trying to ratify the constitution. The context of the statement reflects Madison's views on the inherent dangers of concentrated power and the necessity of mechanisms to guard against its abuse. is a straightforward acknowledgment of human nature and the dangers of unchecked authority. He wasn’t making a case against government or democracy (or his 'representative republic' version of it) but pointing out that people, by their very nature, can be tempted to abuse power. That’s why Madison worked so hard to design a system with checks and balances, ensuring that no single person or group could consolidate too much control.

    Rather than suggesting power itself is inherently bad, Madison believed it needed to be carefully managed and distributed. His entire approach was pragmatic: assume that people are fallible, and create a system that limits the potential for harm. This philosophy is evident throughout his writings, including his famous assertion in The Federalist Papers that, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” It’s clear he saw mistrust of power as essential to building a fair and enduring system of governance.

    So when Madison spoke of mistrusting power, it wasn’t a call to abandon government but a reminder to stay vigilant and ensure that systems are in place to keep power in check. It’s a timeless principle that continues to guide democratic systems today. With a guy like Trump, who seeks to exploit Demcoracy's weakness, to poke at it in ways hitherto unforeseeable by the founders, we must be vigilant to who Trump is, a man who envies the unchecked power of dictators, and will do anything he can with our democracy to expand his own power in that direction, the direction of the Tyrant. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist #1:

    "Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."
     
  19. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    15,432
    Likes Received:
    12,915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    deleted
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2024
  20. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    62,230
    Likes Received:
    19,679
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good grief the only thing Obama and Biden did was increase poverty levels.
     
  21. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    62,230
    Likes Received:
    19,679
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In fact, I don't wholly agree with his proposition, for one thing you don't need Democracy to arrive at a totalitarian state China is as totalitarian as it gets and has never been a Democracy but it has always had a humongous bureaucracy and in fact established the first testing system for would be bureaucrats Before the word bureaucrat ever appeared in the English language.
     
  22. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    62,230
    Likes Received:
    19,679
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To that let me add that none should be allowed to hold the reins of power permanently
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2024
    Eleuthera likes this.
  23. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    37,821
    Likes Received:
    19,862
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Once again we find ourselves in the company of someone whose opposition to democracy is couched in the misplaced nostalgia for an idealized past that never existed and a misunderstanding of what democracy truly represents. Your invocation of Jeb Smith’s arguments only confirms the incoherence of this entire line of thought. Allow me, if you will, to respond to your points with the intellectual precision they so desperately lack.

    Let us first address the overarching claim that democracy leads inevitably to totalitarianism. This is not only historically false but conceptually absurd. Democracy and tyranny are not bedfellows; they are polar opposites. They exist on a spectrum where one diminishes as the other grows. To whatever degree democracy flourishes, tyranny is absent; and to whatever degree tyranny emerges, democracy wanes. This is not a matter of opinion but of historical record. The more democratic a society becomes -- whether through direct participation, parliamentary structures, or representative systems -- the less room there is for despotic rule.

    Take your cited examples: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Communist Russia. None of these regimes rose to power because of “too much democracy.” They emerged because democratic systems were weak, corrupt, or undermined by greed, oligarchy, and populist demagoguery. Hitler’s rise, for instance, was not the natural fruit of democracy but its perversion, enabled by economic despair, propaganda, and the willingness of an oligarchic elite to back a dictator they thought they could control. The same can be said for Lenin’s Russia, born of autocratic collapse and not of democratic experimentation. These are cautionary tales of how democracy can be eroded -- not proof of its inherent flaws. And no one is claiming democracy is the panacea for all societal ills, it's just that, as Churchill once exclaimed, essentially, democracy is horrible, but all the others are worse! But I would modify his statement, which I have paraphrased, anyway, that 'all the others are much much worse'!

    Now, your romanticization of monarchies and pre-modern systems as paragons of liberty is particularly galling. Do you truly believe the serfs of feudal Europe, who lived under the unyielding thumb of aristocratic power, enjoyed greater freedom than the citizens of modern democracies? The tax rate under King George III may have been 3%, but it funded a system that denied millions the right to vote, own property, or speak freely. The modern democratic state, for all its flaws, redistributes wealth to fund education, infrastructure, and public health -- things that benefit all citizens, not just a privileged elite.

    And your assertion that democracy inherently centralizes power? History proves the opposite. Democracies are uniquely capable of decentralizing authority by ensuring that power is distributed among elected representatives, independent judiciaries, and civil society. The very fact that you can decry democracy so openly without fear of reprisal is a testament to its resilience. Would your “alternative system” afford you such liberties, 1stvermont? I suspect not.

    You cite Lysander Spooner as if his 19th-century musings were scripture, ignoring that democracy has evolved since his time. Participation in a democratic system is not the binary choice of master or slave that Spooner described but a process of collective negotiation. It is messy, yes, and imperfect, but it remains the only system that gives individuals a meaningful voice in how they are governed.

    As for your complaint about taxes, it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of governance. Taxes are not theft; they are the price we pay for a civilized society. The alternative is a world where the rich pave their own roads while the poor starve in the streets -- a feudal nightmare dressed up as libertarian utopia. Your beloved “decentralization” would not empower individuals; it would empower corporations and the wealthy, turning every aspect of life into a marketplace where only those with means have agency.

    Finally, your call to “destroy democracy” in the name of liberty is as self-contradictory as it is dangerous. If democracy falls, what remains? Tyranny, Vermont, in all its many forms: autocracy, oligarchy, corporate feudalism. You claim to want to “give power back to the people,” but the only system that has ever achieved this on any meaningful scale is democracy. Your solution is not a cure; it is the disease itself. Also, let's not get sidetracked into Madisonian arguments of 'direct democracy v representative republics', we are talking about democracy, as a broad, descriptive term where suh distinctions are all inclusive.

    History, Vermont, is not on your side. From the Magna Carta to the American Revolution, from the abolition of slavery to the suffrage movements, the story of liberty is the story of expanding democracy. Tyranny thrives not when democracy is strong but when it is weak -- when power is hoarded by kings, corporations, or unaccountable elites. To destroy democracy is to destroy liberty itself.

    So, I ask you: Do you truly seek liberty for all, or simply the freedom to impose your vision of it on others? Democracy, for all its flaws, is the only system that prevents such impositions. It may be imperfect, but it is indispensable. So, when you say 'we musts destroy democracy', the only thing that remains after it's destruction is tyranny, or some variant thereof. Remember, the two forces are, on one side, rule of law where people have a say in their government via elections, have rights, and so forth, or rule of men, where the people have no say of their governance, have no rights, and a subject to the whims and will of tyrants.

    That IS what you are saying. So, please rethink your position.

    On your issue of 'taxation' it's a red herring I will address it separately.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2024
  24. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    37,821
    Likes Received:
    19,862
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    See #73 for the first part of this response, this is the second part, about taxation:

    You’ve raised taxation as though it were the definitive litmus test of tyranny. But let us be clear: taxation is not oppression, and using it as a cudgel to denounce democracy is a red herring -- a distraction from the core issue of governance and liberty. You point to historical rebellions over minimal tax rates as if they vindicate your position, but context is everything.

    In pre-modern societies, taxation was indeed low -- but at what cost? Those societies offered nothing in return. No public education, no infrastructure, no healthcare, no social safety nets. The “freedom” from taxes enjoyed by medieval serfs or 18th-century colonists was, in reality, a form of neglect. Their rulers extracted what little they needed to fund their wars and palaces, leaving the rest of society to fend for itself. Is that the utopia you’re proposing? A world where the government takes nothing because it gives nothing?

    Under modern democracies, taxation is higher because the responsibilities of government are greater. Roads do not pave themselves. Hospitals do not materialize out of thin air. Schools and universities do not run on good intentions. Taxes fund the common good -- they are the means by which society invests in itself. Do you honestly believe that a king or an oligarch would be more judicious with that revenue? History suggests otherwise.

    You also conveniently ignore how democracy provides checks and balances on taxation. In democratic systems, taxes are debated, legislated, and adjusted through elected representatives. Contrast this with monarchies or dictatorships, where taxation is imposed unilaterally, often to fund the whims of the ruling class. Louis XIV didn’t convene a committee to ask whether Versailles was an appropriate use of public funds.

    Your insistence that “democracy causes taxes to skyrocket” is not supported by history. Taxation levels reflect societal priorities, not the nature of the government itself. Democracies tax more because they provide more -- because citizens demand public services that enhance collective welfare. And let’s not ignore the obvious: even the lowest-taxed modern democracies, like Switzerland, still boast a higher quality of life than the most “libertarian” historical societies you idealize.

    Finally, let’s address the emotional weight of your argument. You invoke the Boston Tea Party, rebellions against a 2% or 3% tax, as if these are universal truths about the dangers of taxation. But those revolts were not simply about tax rates; they were about representation. The cry was “no taxation without representation,” not “no taxation ever.” What the colonists wanted was a say in how they were governed -- a principle that democracy enshrines. Your argument against democracy, therefore, is fundamentally at odds with the historical examples you cite.

    To frame taxation as tyranny is to misunderstand the very concept of governance. Taxes are not the theft of liberty; they are its safeguard. Without them, there is no collective infrastructure, no safety net, no common good -- only a feudal world where wealth buys power and the rest are left with nothing. If that is your vision of freedom, Vermont, then it is a vision at odds with both history and humanity.

    So let us leave this red herring on the table where it belongs and return to the real issue: governance. Taxes may sting, but they are not shackles. True tyranny is a world where the wealthy rule unchallenged, where the powerless are left to rot, and where “freedom” exists only for those who can afford it. Democracy, for all its flaws, is the only system that ensures taxation is paired with representation -- a safeguard you would discard at your peril.
     
  25. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    15,432
    Likes Received:
    12,915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And you feel the taxes we pay are the absolute lowest necessary for the government to perform its legal functions? You make a good point that taxation IS necessary for the government to function BUT how much is going to useless or unproductive uses? How much of that can benefit society more by remaining in the hands of the people and organizations that earned them?
     
    garyd likes this.

Share This Page