Posted on 03/16/2013 2:11:08 PM PDT by rmlew
I believe the author is more accurately disparaging mob rule.
As P.J. O’Rourke once said, in a true democracy, every pair of pants would be acid-washed jeans, and every meal a pizza.
We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class; to win the battle of democracy. …Even though Marx and Engels were famous for their advocation of violent revolution, they knew there were other “paths” for their ideology to take in order to seize power.
Moslems are not interested in peace, but rather world domination. The only kind of government suitable for them, regardless of structure, is a demilitarized one.
The rogue elements need to be carefully observed and occasionally "demotivated".
That is why this country is theoretically a representative republic.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
“If we had looked instead at a poll which showed that 4 out of 5 Egyptians believe that adulterers should be stoned and thieves should have their hands cut off, we would have known how this democracy experiment was going to end and how much damage it would do to our national interests.”
I can’t say I remember that, but I DEFINITELY DO REMEMBER the polls that said the Brotherhood would walk away with any election and would turn Egypt into another Iran. It wasn’t even close. Egypt was SEETHING, ready to become the next Islamic state in the Middle East, with only Sadat and then Mubarak stopping that. It WAS NOT a state secret - if this little twerp blogger from Texas knew what was in store, then Hillary certainly did too.
I remember getting angry at reading something in a geography book (during junior high, I think) that said some countries simply aren’t ready for democracy - I was wrong (then), and they were right. Unfortunately Democrat leaders and most Republican leaders are still stuck in that classroom, thinking as I did. You’d think they could learn, if not from the Palestinians, then from Iraq, or Afghanistan. Or maybe...more likely...this has ALWAYS been their objectives.
I look at Obama and Biden and Reid and Pelosi and I don’t see hearts beating for Democracy. I see hands itching for money. We’re never going to get anywhere if we keep attributing noble thoughts to this bunch of thieves. They are out to make money for themselves and their buddies. Is there anyone, anyone who thinks these thieves helped kill Qaddafi because they wanted a Democratic Libya? Does anyone here think the Democrats are killing the Syrian Soldiers because the Democrats think that will bring Democracy to Syria? It’s all about money.
No, it is not a representative republic, it is a Constitutional republic. The purpose of the Constitution is to put some things outside the reach of democratic majorities, representative or direct.
The problem with democracy is that the people who create businesses and wealth will always be a small minority of the population, and will thus be a tempting target for robbery via government. Self-rule only survives as long as the majority of the people are moral enough to not want to steal other people's property.
In the Arab world, democracy does not work because the majority does not have the necessary mind-set to make it work.
Corrupt Representation has brought
us to a state of “Dumbacracity.”
Dictators know how to do this.
I am claiming the phrase as my own.
I meant “ Dumbacrisy”
Always looking for talking points.
There is no drought of historical lessons showing that this is true, but leftists never learn from history. I think all egalitarian movements entail collective illusions of its adherents and proponents, and it ensues from deception and naturally glides inevitably toward totalitarianism. Again- history teaches it. It's good to see someone setting the record straight on Democracy and let's hope we see it hammered on more and more.
Freedom is the goal, and democracy merely a means of trying to attain it. Democracy without respect for the rights of the individual does not advance the cause of freedom. Whatever their form, governments that don’t secure “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are oppressive.
I do believe, though — along with the writers of the Declaration of Independence — that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed”. I won’t deny that in general dictatorships that rule in opposition to the will of the people are an evil.
In some instances, though, democracies impose a harmful tyranny of the majority that can be even more oppressive. At some times and places we have to face the fact that both of the given alternatives are bad, and choose the lesser of two evils. Democracies (including representative democracies, republics such as our own) aren’t foolproof.
> What is never mentioned is the fact that the more democracy we have the less personal liberty we retain.
Interesting the way you phrased that. I agree that we don’t want the group as a whole making decisions for us as individuals — and the more they do the less personal freedom we have (I’ve never thought about that in quite those terms). On the other hand, we don’t want some individual (a dictator) making all the decisions for us or for other individuals either. Both are forms of tyranny that suppress individual freedom.
Ideally we as individuals would do as we please in every situation, but because our actions often affect others, there must be some limitations on them (laws against crimes that seriously harm others, and so forth). I don’t want government intruding into our personal affairs any more than is necessary, though (to maintain a reasonable level of safety for the people as a whole).
In most situations I support limited government — rule by the majority (that is, a representative democracy) but with strong guarantees for the rights of the individual.
It's important to make the distinction-- and I don't want to put words in your mouth or infer incorrectly-- between a political process, where a majority of votes carries more weight than the minority, and dominion. Our founders foresaw wisely that we could only protect and ensure liberty through the rule of law- not whims of the mob (majority).
I'm guessing you meant that but it wasn't clear.
Sorry, but I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Do you mean by ‘dominion’ control by the majority that goes so far as to oppress the individual? If so, I oppose it. The majority of the voters, though, indirectly determine the law (and if that majority is large enough, they can legally change even the Constitution itself). We’re ultimately dependent upon their tolerance, or apathy (except to the degree that we have the power, irrespective of law, to resist them).
In the Arab world, democracy does not work because the majority does not have the necessary mind-set to make it work.
They had better voting procedures than we do (inked finger when they voted), but ... Shia voted for Shia representatives, and then all of the Shia representatives voted together. They would have been better off dividing up the country by sect.
Meanwhile ... all of the Christians and other minorities were systematically killed off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.