thor
Legend
Posts: 20,403
|
Post by thor on Nov 15, 2024 22:29:17 GMT
"Simple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature. It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy. What Athens was in miniature America will be in magnitude."
This is similar to what Madison was arguing in Federalist 10 (regarding size).
"Ingrafting" on trees supplants the original in favor of the new grafted limb, which is usually more desirable (I have many Japanese maples). Once the graft is successful, the tree is referred to by the characteristics of the new limb, while the branches of the old are trimmed and discarded.
Isn't it funny that your sacred democracy doesn't work without some major modifier or revision?
Poor Cuck. Sodomized with reality like every Civil War thread.  |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Nov 18, 2024 19:28:56 GMT
I found the actual Rush quote; the undoctored version, which presents a different picture than the chopped up version. Here it is: "A simple democracy, or an unballanced republic is one of the greatest of evils. I think with Dr Zubly that 'a Democracy (with only one branch) is the Tevils own governement.' These words he uttered at my table in the Spring of 1776, upon my giving as a toast the 'commonwealth of America.' At the same instant that he spoke these words, he turned his glass upside downwards, and refused to drink the toast." ( Source) Earlier in this same letter to Adams, Rush defines republic as "a Goverment consisting of three branches, and each derived at different times & for different periods from the PEOPLE." In other words, a balanced democracy. And here's what the edited version of the quote looked like back on p. 1: "A simple democracy is the devil's own government." - Benjamin RushCompletely distorted Rush's meaning. You should get better sources. All I have to do is let you talk and you correct yourself. Rush actually said: "A simple democracy, or an unballanced republic is one of the greatest of evils". He also said this "I THINK WITH DR. ZUBLY...", meaning that Rush agreed with the Doctor, thus confirming my original truncated quote. There was no distortion on my part. Interesting that Rush in the same letter said this: "An hundred years hence absolute monarchy will probably be rendered necessary in our country by the corruption of our people" and that he wanted a more powerful president. Kinda of a fringe thinker. Your comprehension is terrible. They're not flip flopping. Look at how they defined democracy. OF course they were flip flopping. How credible is it to think that the Founders were saying "democracy is terrible and we hate it, but democracy as we redefine it is so wonderful!". Again, I've provided numerous quotes where they say the Constitution is a democracy and point out the mechanisms are democratic. So, you're sticking your head in the sand here. And you've been schooled on how scarce those "democratic mechanisms" are in the actual Constitution that these Founders created and approved. Like liberals today, the word "democracy" used by the Founders appears to be a dishonest trigger word, intended for the masses as they were trying to get the Constitution ratified (ironically, the ratifications skipped the democratic mechanisms, excluding the people from directly voting on their government). Except it wasn't. They use the term before and after (in some cases well after). Just like the liberal propaganda today, a dishonest label (democracy) was used for the simpletons that were the Founders' audience. His definition is pretty much the same as Montesquieu's, but you're so close to getting the point.
“There are three kinds of governments: the republican, the monarchical and the despotic. Under a republic the people, or a part of the people, has the sovereign power. Under a monarchy one man alone rules, but by fixed and established laws. Under a despotism a single man, without law or regulation, impels everything according to his will…
When in a republic, the whole people possesses sovereign power, it is a democracy. When this power is in the hands of only a part of the people, it is an aristocracy. In a democracy the people, in certain respects, are the monarch; in others, they are the subject. It cannot reign except by its votes, and the laws which establish the right of voting are therefore fundamental in this form of government.
A people possessing sovereign power ought to do itself everything that it can do well; what it cannot do well it must leave to its ministers. Its ministers, however, are not its own unless it nominates them; it is therefore a fundamental principle of this government that the people should nominate their ministers…
There are two excesses which a democracy must avoid: the spirit of inequality, which leads to an aristocracy or a government by one man; and the spirit of excessive equality, which ends in despotism.” - Montesqueiu in De l’esprit des Lois alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/montesquieu-on-government-systems-1748/Note that Montesqueiu didn't say the three kinds were "democratic, monarchical and despotic". He specifically had "democracy as a subset, not a primary form of government. So, your current argument is that it has to say democracy in the constitution? For any free and deep thinker, the omission of the word "democracy" would be a major screw-up if the entire government was going to BE a democracy. Re-read what Montesqueiu said. Democracy is a sub-characteristic of a "Republic", with the requirement that sovereignty remain with the people. Our Constitution created much more of an "aristocratic republic" per Montesqueiu's definition (see above). But publicly calling our government an "aristocratic republic" wouldn't have gotten it ratified, would it? You're hung up on empty propaganda and rhetoric that was not included in the Constitution itself and those are the wrong places to look. Is that so? Where's your evidence of that? Meanwhile, I'll point to the Convention debates, the Federalist Papers (even the Anti-Federalist papers), letters and other documents written by Founding Fathers that shows they got what they wanted and called it a democracy. Which is exactly what I've shown throughout this thread. My "evidence" of that is the Constitution itself. It's easy to carelessly throw around a word like "democracy" (as the left does today) when pontificating for public consumption. But when it was official and final, that word was omitted from the formal document. I think the problem is that you don't know what they wanted or understand what they meant by democracy. Who cares what they "meant" when we can read what they created in the Constitution, a document that divorces democracy from most of the governance mechanisms and puts sovereignty primarily in the hands of professionals in government, not the people. Just so we're clear before we go further down this particular point, because I want to be sure of what you're saying here: Are you saying it has to explicitly mention democracy? Are you saying its a republic because it says "a Republican Form of Government" in Article 4, Section 4? No mention of the word "democracy" weakens your already weak argument, but I put less stock in labels and more in the actual details in the Constitution. Before the 17th amendment, only the House saw indirect democratic action with people voting for representatives. Even so, the people were voting their own sovereignty over to those representatives, who could do anything they wanted for two years without any direct check from the people.
The people can punish and/or replace a federal representative at a election time (after 2, 4 or 6 powerless years), and can do nothing more, which is about the thinnest tether that we can have to "democracy". |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Nov 18, 2024 19:35:01 GMT
"Ingrafting" on trees supplants the original in favor of the new grafted limb, which is usually more desirable (I have many Japanese maples). Once the graft is successful, the tree is referred to by the characteristics of the new limb, while the branches of the old are trimmed and discarded.
Isn't it funny that your sacred democracy doesn't work without some major modifier or revision?
Why would that be funny? Do you think you have a point here?
Paine was arguing that democracy works and is the best form of government; adding representation improved upon it and allowed it to become a larger democratic government, whereas before expansion caused democracies to degenerate into monarchies or aristocracies.
For example, earlier in the work, Paine says: "Though the ancient governments present to us a miserable picture of the condition of man, there is one which above all others exempts itself from the general description. I mean the democracy of the Athenians. We see more to admire, and less to condemn, in that great, extraordinary people, than in anything which history affords." By adding representation: "What Athens was in miniature America will be in magnitude."
BTW, even though we kind of sniping at each, I want you to know that I am legitimately enjoying the back and forth. Beats the usual.
Representation dilutes democracy, as it's supposed to do. It's a bit like thinning whiskey by adding water and still calling it whiskey.
I, too, am enjoying this discussion with you. Biggest problem for me is having time to have such detailed discussions. Second problem is rendering my thoughts in a coherent way, which requires a lot of self-editing and rewrites.
It's so much easier to do like Fiddler and thor and exclaim "YOU'RE A BIG FIZZY DOUCHE!" and troll on to the next topic.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Nov 18, 2024 19:51:56 GMT
All I have to do is let you talk and you correct yourself. Rush actually said: "A simple democracy, or an unballanced republic is one of the greatest of evils". He also said this "I THINK WITH DR. ZUBLY...", meaning that Rush agreed with the Doctor, thus confirming my original truncated quote. There was no distortion on my part. Interesting that Rush in the same letter said this: "An hundred years hence absolute monarchy will probably be rendered necessary in our country by the corruption of our people" and that he wanted a more powerful president. Kinda of a fringe thinker. I don't think it's a distortion on your part, because you were just copying and pasting from some website. It's a distortion by the people who edited it.
I would suggest you actually read some of this stuff and actually read what I write as well. First of all, it's not all the Founders saying democracy is terrible. Second, several of them supported democracy and promoted it as they understood. They were saying the same thing before the Constitutional Convention as they were after. I have provided you with quotes from multiple time periods.
The other members of the state conventions were the masses? Their private letters were a trigger word for the masses? Does it hurt to try and bend over backwards that much?
They skipped the state legislatures in favor of direct election of convention delegates and lowered the requirements for voting:
"In addition, property and residence requirements could be reduced or eliminated in voting for convention delegates, making the conventions more representative of the people at large." ( Source)
See above.
And then look at how several of these people I quoted define the government, as the people being the sovereign, i.e., a democracy.
No, it didn't. Under our Constitution, the people are sovereign. By Montesquieu's definition, it's a democracy: "When in a republic, the whole people possesses sovereign power, it is a democracy."
You read things, but don't understand them.
Except these weren't all for public consumption, a lot of what I have quoted is private correspondence.
Ever hear of legislative intent? The preamble disagrees with this. So does the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
According to the Constitution, the government's powers are derived from the people and delegated to the government. That is also confirmed in the many statements and letters from the Founders I've quoted.
See above.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,194
|
Post by demos on Nov 18, 2024 19:53:54 GMT
Representation dilutes democracy, as it's supposed to do. It's a bit like thinning whiskey by adding water and still calling it whiskey. That's your opinion of representation; not what these guys thought.
An important distinction.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,403
|
Post by thor on Nov 18, 2024 21:42:53 GMT
Who cares what they "meant" when we can read what they created in the Constitution, a document that divorces democracy from most of the governance mechanisms and puts sovereignty primarily in the hands of professionals in government, not the people. So. Fucking. Dumb. |
|
