Uncivil Rights
A BLOG rife with wit, sarcasm, and the endless joy which comes from taunting the socialistic and unpatriotic liberal left. Logical thoughts and musings ONLY need reply...unless you're really, really funny. You have the Uncivil Right to be an IDIOT.
"Give me LIBERTY, or give me DEATH!"
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Republic vs. Democracy Part II
Here are some comments from a liberal-socialist regarding my previous post “Republic vs. Democracy”.
“Let me tell you that Senator Clinton was absolutely right. Maybe your system is not as corrupt as in some other countries, however, your electoral system with that goddamn Electoral College institution is by no means democratic and you really have to dream of a similar electoral system as in Ukraine.”
Now this thought (in bold) tells me either he never read the post or did not understand the post. The article CLEARLY STATES, “…the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.” The framers foresaw potentially few populated areas ruling the country, so they avoided this situation. Most people fail to understand that the President is not selected by popular vote. In fact, when one votes for a presidential candidate, they are actually voting for the Electoral College vote for that candidate. One does not “vote for the president” of the U.S, it is a balance of power between the states.
The liberal was actually correct to say, “…your electoral system with that goddamn Electoral College institution is by no means democratic…” Why did the framers avoid the “democratic process” in the election of a president? As the article states, “In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.” So how is this different from a republican form of government? “John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.”
I understand this is difficult to grasp for those minds lacking analytical skills and a logical thought process. This failure to understand the difference seeps into the misunderstandings and misperceptions Europeans have with American society and politics.
”Ukrainian nation showed to you all that they have learnt the lessons of democracy much quicker and better than you, while you’ve been preparing to teach them how to live democratically. How can the votes of just one state define the results of the whole election in the entire country? You have to grow up to understand what democracy really means.”
Again, one must think the commenter had no understanding of the article. The article clearly states, “They saw democracy as another form of tyranny.” The framers were battling a tyrant in the King of England and did not want the newly formed government to mimic that much hated form of government they were fighting. In fact, “The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.” “John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.”
The founders were very wary of “mob rules”, their fear can be expressed form the following passage: This is from Neal Boorts at www.boortz.com
This is one of my favorites. From Alexander Tyler. No, he wasn't writing about the United States. This quote is well over one hundred years old. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
I guess, according to the commenter, we need to grow up to understand democracy and the fact it will fail. I believe the framers also knew a pure democracy would not succeed and therefore deliberately set up the republic to avoid that failure.
“The antonym for “democracy” is “dictatorship”, not “republicanism”. Finally you are hinting, dude, that this blog belongs to a bunch of miserable dictators.”
This comment clearly exemplifies the liberal-socialist mentality. This person thinks that if it is not a democracy then it must be a dictatorship, an uneducated thought. From Britannica Online, a republic is, “Form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.” America does not have a direct democracy regarding our presidential elections, herein defines the difference.
It is this lack of knowledge and intellect that dominates the liberal-socialist agenda and philosophy. Perhaps the liberal-socialists and Europeans should read and learn some American history before illuminating their lack of intelligence.
“Let me tell you that Senator Clinton was absolutely right. Maybe your system is not as corrupt as in some other countries, however, your electoral system with that goddamn Electoral College institution is by no means democratic and you really have to dream of a similar electoral system as in Ukraine.”
Now this thought (in bold) tells me either he never read the post or did not understand the post. The article CLEARLY STATES, “…the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.” The framers foresaw potentially few populated areas ruling the country, so they avoided this situation. Most people fail to understand that the President is not selected by popular vote. In fact, when one votes for a presidential candidate, they are actually voting for the Electoral College vote for that candidate. One does not “vote for the president” of the U.S, it is a balance of power between the states.
The liberal was actually correct to say, “…your electoral system with that goddamn Electoral College institution is by no means democratic…” Why did the framers avoid the “democratic process” in the election of a president? As the article states, “In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.” So how is this different from a republican form of government? “John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.”
I understand this is difficult to grasp for those minds lacking analytical skills and a logical thought process. This failure to understand the difference seeps into the misunderstandings and misperceptions Europeans have with American society and politics.
”Ukrainian nation showed to you all that they have learnt the lessons of democracy much quicker and better than you, while you’ve been preparing to teach them how to live democratically. How can the votes of just one state define the results of the whole election in the entire country? You have to grow up to understand what democracy really means.”
Again, one must think the commenter had no understanding of the article. The article clearly states, “They saw democracy as another form of tyranny.” The framers were battling a tyrant in the King of England and did not want the newly formed government to mimic that much hated form of government they were fighting. In fact, “The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.” “John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.”
The founders were very wary of “mob rules”, their fear can be expressed form the following passage: This is from Neal Boorts at www.boortz.com
This is one of my favorites. From Alexander Tyler. No, he wasn't writing about the United States. This quote is well over one hundred years old. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
I guess, according to the commenter, we need to grow up to understand democracy and the fact it will fail. I believe the framers also knew a pure democracy would not succeed and therefore deliberately set up the republic to avoid that failure.
“The antonym for “democracy” is “dictatorship”, not “republicanism”. Finally you are hinting, dude, that this blog belongs to a bunch of miserable dictators.”
This comment clearly exemplifies the liberal-socialist mentality. This person thinks that if it is not a democracy then it must be a dictatorship, an uneducated thought. From Britannica Online, a republic is, “Form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives elected by its populace. The term was originally applied to a form of government in which the leader is periodically appointed under a constitution; it was contrasted with governments in which leadership is hereditary. A republic may also be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics.” America does not have a direct democracy regarding our presidential elections, herein defines the difference.
It is this lack of knowledge and intellect that dominates the liberal-socialist agenda and philosophy. Perhaps the liberal-socialists and Europeans should read and learn some American history before illuminating their lack of intelligence.
totalkaosdave, 8:16 PM
|
