A Short Essay on Democracy

Post Reply New Topic

Please read this short essay, and post your thoughts on it.

I'm interested solely in the claims presented in the essay, and your responses within the context of the essay, so PLEASE don't derail this thread with America-bashing, personal attacks, or religious word-salads.

Thank you,

Fnord

I cannot, for one minute, separate the ideas of the men who wrote the constitution, from which America's democratic ideals stem, from the men who wrote them and brought them to fruition in that document. So, when I look at what is written about freedom in the Bill of Rights, for example, I am fully aware of what they are talking about and it is not "freedom" in the sense we think of it today - everyone getting to do whatever it is they want without government telling them what to do.

So when I read all this flowery speech on "freedom" I do so with a smirk on my lips because I know it has nothing to do with the men who wrote the constitution. The men who wrote it were only referring to their own freedom and the freedom of male landowners in the colonies who didn't want a king telling them what to do. The religion freedom they had in mind was the puritanical, austere, anabaptist type Protestantism which was too extreme, and perhaps considered abusive, by Europeans which gave these first wave of colonists the impetus to travel across the Atlantic, carving homesteads and small villages out of the wilderness.

If you want the Constitution to reflect on the freedom of all men and women, you would simply need to revise *shudders* the original document by people living today who are in touch with the idea of freedom for all.

Otherwise, what you are talking about is not a democracy, more like an autocracy run by rich, white, middle aged, puritanical men who will decide on matters concerning them, in which they will demand absolute freedom to abuse the rights of all those under them, that they deem unworthy of true person-hood, which they felt themselves embodied 100% and everyone else was less. That is what they called "freedom." It was the freedom of the full human, not the 3/4, 1/2, 1/3. 2/3 or 1/4 humans. Those didn't merit freedom according to many of the ones who wrote the constitution. This is why the spirit of the original document cannot be ignored. You cannot really apply the original document to what we have today because you end up with too many problems and disconnects from reality, as in, none of us are truly ever free. If we were, we wouldn't have to worry about anything. Wouldn't have to do anything unless we wanted to. As we all know, that's impossible.


Simple explanation, freedom is an illusion and people are convinced they need it to be happy but guess what, even when they have freedom they are still NOT happy. In fact, people seem most content when they are busy thinking of ways to deprive each other of personal liberties, as in, the Evangelicals want to take freedom from gays while claiming the gays are depriving them of religious freedom. It just goes round and round. But in truth, the Evangelicals are actually the ones most in tune with the framers of the constitution and what they had in mind when they were talking about freedom. It was about the freedom of the WASP fanatic above everyone else, to be a WASP fanatic without anyone depriving them of the privilege like the Kings tried to do in Europe.

So when you talk of individual freedom v. social freedom, it's all double talk and nonsense since we are not truly free. We cannot do whatever we want whenever we want because if we did, people would die and be miserable because I would have the freedom to harm another if I wanted and they would have the freedom to pound my face in the ground for harming them. See how it cancels out???
It's just misery.



Okay we have two choices. Do what we are told or fight a bloody revolution and people are not to the point they want to bother fighting a bloody war against the state so we do what we are told. What we are told to do is not so heinous we feel like disrupting our lives to change it and Americans despise instability. This idea of not knowing if things will get worse after action is taken quells many would-be revolutionaries.

Look at all the Arab revolutions and what we have now - the stoning and beheadings. Strict Sharia Law. There are factions in this country who want the freedom to inflict strict Christian Sharia Law straight from the pages of the Bible on the citizens of this country.

When you are talking revolution, you don't know who you will end up with after the process, which will be filled with stench and death, only to lead to something that might be worse than what was there before. The stakes are too high. Thus, people do what they are told and get through the day.

Most of what the far right tea partiers want would wreck the economy. It would shrink and when it does shrink, mark my words, it will be painful, which they will just blame the distress on something when it's their ignorance that will cause the shrinking. Take money out of the economy, it shrinks. So, putting them in charge would wreck the economy.

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 07 Apr 2015, 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Democracy is not here to promote or counter any cause but to have the people decide and live with the consequences. We chose not to oppose the surveillance state for security and convenience. We chose to care more about celebrities then complicated issues. We chose to highlight the negatives in Autism. I do not deny at all important factors in these choices are lack of power and ability and constant reinforcement of certain messages.

Democracy has nothing to do with the economic system. The other choice was The King.

Nothing was published without the King's prior permission.

Corporations were Chartered by The Crown.

America just opened the game to all players. (Subject to State Laws, Tax Codes, and non Royal Laws.)

Personal freedom was open, there was no Social Freedom, no Classical Welfare State.

The writer thinks there is a societal process, so did marx. It is also the sales pitch of religion.

The field of options within which we can live out our individual freedoms needs to be redefined, to conform with his views. Those who do not comply will be sent to Reeducation Camps.

There is only one truth, his, and as the Hand Of God, he will enforce it.

Most hairless ground apes are dumb, lazy, and smell bad.

The few that act, learn, work, bathe, and follow their own self interest, seeking only their own happiness, by being productive, using only reason, must be harnessed to the wagon, which they should supply, and pull the claimed Societal Process till no one has to work, The State vanishes, and the Kingdom of God rises.

Reality is some byproduct of a Universe we do not understand. No Religion, Economic System, Government has ever lasted. All paper money becomes worthless.

The only Societal Process is everybody dies.

The highest value I can conceive of is my own happiness.

I will vote against anyone wanting to redefine my freedoms.

Democracy is not there to predispose. If they say democracy is only there to counter something then it can't be truly democratic.

I actually think people are way too fanatical with pro/anti Capitalism almost the extent it has become almost become a meaningless concept. What actually matters is what is meant by property and rights. Too often people try to extend meaning of property and rights to what is in reality protectionism.

The important thing to note that Capitalism and Competition are not he same thing. You can't assume they one follows the other. You need capitalism, but capitalism without competition is Fascism (pretty close to Mussolini).

So clearly it is not a case of Left or Right, it is what practically is employed.



Can't really disagree here..

There is democracy, in the turnover, all the political fall outs. Discourse, etc. Democracy is messy that is the point. If it isn't messy it probably isn't that democratic.



The point of democracy is decide what direction government, and society is goign to go in.



There isn't actually an alternative to governance. "Direct Democracy" doesn't scale, and somebody has to set the question. There is a fair amount of tribalism in political affiliation, I try to stay clear of. However if you blame the politician you must also look in the mirror too. Of course electoral reform could make a differnce. There is no perfect system, but improvement could be made. Where I agree is people thinking short term, so they know that electoral reform could be beneficial but they put it on the back burned, becuase they are only focused on immediate issues and desires. This is why obvious political reform takes so long.

I also think we need to a bit get over the idea assuming a perfect political/socioeconomic system, this is more a legacy of the cold war, and not a realistic/pragmatic approach.

In summary there is far more to democracy than the general election.

Sorry, I am an anarchist.

Well, the truth of the matter is one cannot understand Democracy in the context
one provides here without understanding religion, as religious freedom is
the main point that the country is developed on per freedom
of developing personal existential intelligence to
pursue true human liberty, justice, and happiness.

Thomas Jefferson, uses the guiding principles
of Christianity in his 'Jeffersonian Bible',
as an impetus for his authorship
of what we have, as our
Constitution and 'D of I';

And further MORE
here's another secret
that truly shouldn't
be a secret to human
freedom.

As long as one can neither
tolerate or accept the diversity
among human beings in freedom
of expression with an open mind, to learning
more than one can possibly understand now;

One will never be truly free, as truly free humans
are happy to be, just as is, always now, and easily
connect to other human beings as they try to understand
other folks, without dismissing them, as the lesser human.

And trust me, or not, when one does that one becomes a human
being that is neither free or happy, in the longest RUN OR RUIN
OF EXISTENCE THAT CAN BE NOW.

AND one IS SO FULL OF HYPOCRISY IN one's OWN WORDS HERE
STARTING OFF one's OP, BY DEMANDING NO PERSONAL ATTACKS BUT
TAKING one's OWN PERSONAL SWIPE AT ANYONE WHO DARES TO COME
HERE AND USE METAPHOR AND RELIGION THAT IS FRIGGING DIRECTLY ON
TOPIC, OF WHAT one DISCUSSES HERE.

One neither impresses me with metaphors,
facts, or one's basic common humanity,
and decency;

my friend, or NOT.

In fact, honestly, one disappoints me;

for I feel one has the potential to do better.

Sorry, but that's both a feeling, and A FACT;

FROM ONE EXTREMELY open mind and body in balance, to

'another', FOR WHATEVER that's worth to one, in mindful awareness.

I'm short on time, but some quick thoughts:

The author has not defined capitalism, nor democracy, nor established that the former has "latent dangers," nor that the latter is capable of countering such. Anybody care to defend absolute majority rule, i.e., pure democracy?



What in the world is "social freedom"?



What we know as the welfare state is quite a modern invention. What would be its "classic" form, Mussolini's maybe? And where is the evidence that it is being "demolished"? This certainly isn't the case in the US.



Quoting Ayn Rand is a good way to get my attention, but I'm unable to make any sense of this claim. There is absolutely no evidence that the Obamas and Putins of the world are motivated by a love of reason and productive achievement, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. And to the extent that they wield their influence in order to build an ever more powerful state, the claim is not true of behind-the-scenes movers and shakers like Buffett or Soros either. Is it the author's contention that all those people are secret Objectivists, but really, really good at hiding it? Or does he claim that there is an ultra-secret cabal of Objectivists who really run everything? (And here after thirty years I've not once been invited to a meeting. Some people are just rude.)

Oke.



The first sentence starts good. Namely by stating that democracy does not necessary has to imply (economic) liberalism. And then follows it up by stating that democracy's prime function is to counter it, which fundamentally would mean that it is inherently an anti-liberal system. Considering the dominant political culture in most of the Western world and for America even more so I highly doubt that the author would appreciate such a conclusion being drawn by a (critical) reader.



And the author does not define the terms being used. So what is meant with social freedoms in this context.



And considering that the welfare state has actually increased the damage liberalism has done to communal ties the effects while be worse, when the patch jobs they provided are no longer in place.



And presumes to know in what kind of society the readers wants to life. But does not actually say what kind of society she means.



This short essay reads more like an introduction to a more lengthier one, but can not stand on its own. It lacks a lot. The terms being used are left undefined . And the author brings up what she or he considers to be problems with ordinary democracy, but does not offer any potential solutions to said problems.