Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Democracy and Self-Suicide
#1
Most of you know by now that I have no love for the concept of Democracy. The Founding Fathers also had no love for it, and went out of their way to ensure the establishment of representative republic instead.

Roger L. Simon gives a good example of how any given society begins taking certain steps on the road to self-ruin, and all in the beloved name of democracy.

And if you will note, Belgium or any other European country, lacks a constitution expressly written to protect the liberties of its citizenry. And tyranny has already shown its ugly head there, as in Germany during the 1930. And these things always start small, and then tend to run away. And all in the name of democracy.

Does anyone believe the protester's future good health will be guaranteed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...JWy3NCaviU
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#2
Historically, in the time of Martin Luther and even later, democracy was considered to be a word used synonymous with anarchy. Successive sentences might use them one following the other, as equivalents. Traces of this thinking remained at the time of the founding of America. It is really only in the last century that democracy has come to be considered the epitomé of orderly government. This is probably because we have made it work--so far--and the world's democracies have won all the major wars where this form of government was threatened. This does not mean that democracy has got it made; only that it currently has the upper hand. The Roman Republic prevailed for almost two centuries, before it mutated into the Roman Empire. Before that, the Grecian city-states tried democracy, but the inequality between classes forced them into oligarchy, which then devolved into the Grecian Empire when the city-states were united.
Reply
#3
Much of that is probably on purpose. The KGB and other publicity arms of socialist states have pushed to create the language.
Reply
#4
Here is a great essay on why Democracy is not the panacea it is wrongly made out to be. And its why I love FEE and the concept of Liberty they espouse.

Democracy Versus Liberty

Its a very long article, so I will just qoute the first portion, and you can go and read the rest. And note the first paragraph, and the original date of its publication. And try to think of just how much this paragraph pertains to what is going on in Cyprus and the EU. Talk about prophetic.

Also, toward the end of part one, Mr. Bovard asks questions that some of us are asking on the "Innocent Casualties of War", and the commonly heard "the people are the government" excuse for government doing all sorts of things it does not have powers to enact.

Quote:Democracy Versus Liberty
August 01, 2006 by JAMES BOVARD

If a foreign power took over the United States and dictated that American citizens surrender 40 percent of their income, required them to submit to tens of thousands of different commands (many of which were effectively kept secret from them), prohibited many of them from using their land, and denied many the chance to find work, there would be little dispute that the people were being tyrannized. Yet the main difference between the current reality and the foreign-invasion scenario is the democratic forms by which government power is now sanctified.

There are few more dangerous errors in political thinking than to equate democracy with liberty. Unfortunately, this is one of the most widespread errors in America —and a key reason why there are few leashes left on government power. As Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek observed in a 1976 speech, “The magic word democracy has become so all-powerful that all the inherited limitations on government power are breaking down before it. . . . It is unlimited democracy, not just democracy, which is the problem today.”1

People have long been encouraged to confuse self-government of their own lives with “self-government” via majority rule over everyone. Because abusive rule by foreigners or a king personified oppression, many presumed that rule by people of one’s own nationality meant freedom. Boston pastor Benjamin Church proclaimed in 1773 that liberty was “the happiness of living under laws of our own making. Therefore, the liberty of the people is exactly proportioned to the share the body of the people have in the legislature.”2 However, the rampages of state and local majorities during and after the American Revolution debunked this naïve faith in majorities.

Americans quickly recognized that liberty meant lack of coercion—especially lack of government coercion. “The Restraint of Government is the True Liberty and Freedom of the People” was a popular motto of the late 1700s.3 John Phillip Reid, in his seminal work, The Concept of Liberty in the Age of the American Revolution, observed that liberty in the eighteenth century was “largely thought of as freedom from arbitrary government. . . . The less a law restrained the citizen, and the more it restrained government, the better the law.”4 This concept of freedom continued into the early part of the twentieth century.

But as time passed, enthusiasm for government power returned and different concepts of freedom arose to again vindicate awarding unlimited power to the majority. Progressive Herbert Croly, one of President Theodore Roosevelt’s favorite writers, declared in 1909, “Individual freedom is important, but more important still is the freedom of a whole people to dispose of its own destiny.”5 However, in practice, this means the “freedom of the whole people” to dispose of individuals’ rights, property, and lives.

This confusion has prospered in part because, throughout Western history, tyrants and tyrant apologists have sought to browbeat citizens into obedience by telling them that they are only obeying themselves. The eighteenth-century French political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau used this bait and switch to sanctify democracy. Rousseau wrote: “Each man, in giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody. . . . Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.”6 The general will is “infallible,” and “to express the general will is to express each man’s real will.” Rousseau taught that people need not fear a government animated by the general will because each citizen would be “obeying only myself.”7 And because the people’s will would actuate government, the classical warnings on the danger of government power became null and void. The horrors of the French Revolution cast Rousseau’s doctrines into temporary disrepute, but his intellectual contortions permeated subsequent thinking on democracy and government.

Some U.S. presidents who have been most enthusiastic on seizing power have exonerated themselves by claiming that “the people did it.” FDR declared in 1938, “Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us,”8 and Bill Clinton declared in 1996 that “The Government is just the people, acting together. . . .”9 In his 1989 farewell address, Ronald Reagan asserted, “ ‘We the People’ tell the government what to do, it doesn’t tell us. ‘We the people’ are the driver—the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast.”10 But the American people did not choose to drive into Beirut and get hundreds of Marines blown up, or choose to run up the largest budget deficits in American history, or provide thousands of antitank weapons to Ayatollah Khomeni, or have a slew of top political appointees either lie or get caught in conflicts of interest or other abuses of power or ethical quandaries between 1981 and 1988.

Invoking “the government is the people” is one of the easiest ways for a politician to shirk responsibility for his actions. This doctrine makes sense only if one assumes that government’s victims are subconscious masochists and government is only fulfilling their secret wishes when it messes up their lives.

The notion that democracy automatically produces liberty hinges on the delusion that “people are obeying themselves.” But, as Freeman editor Sheldon Richman commented, “When you rushed to finish your income tax return at the last minute on April 15, were you in fear of yourself and your fellow Americans or the IRS?”11 People who exceed the speed limit are not “self-ticketed.” People who fail to recycle their beer bottles are not self-fined, as if the recycling police were a mere apparition of a guilty conscience.

Is a citizen governing herself when she is arrested for possessing a handgun in her own home for self-defense in a crime-ridden District of Columbia neighborhood where police long since ceased providing minimum protection? Is a 20-year-old citizen governing himself when he is arrested in his own home by police for drinking a beer? The fact that a majority—or, more likely, a majority of the minority who bothered to vote—may have sanctioned such laws and government powers has nothing to do with the self-government by each citizen of his own life.

Yet by assuring people that they are the government, this makes all the coercion, all the expropriation, all the intrusive searches, all the prison sentences for victimless crimes irrelevant. At least for the theoreticians and apologists of democracy.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#5
Tocqueville argued that the tyranny that most endangers free societies is a soft tyranny: the gradual acceptance and acquiescence to radical egalitarianism, disguised as mob rule and efficiency.
Reply
#6
Universal suffrage is what kills everything. To give people who contribute nothing say equal to that of someone who does is insanity.
Reply
#7
As for Europe, I do not give a shit about them.
Reply
#8
(03-28-2013, 10:20 PM)Gunnen4u Wrote: As for Europe, I do not give a shit about them.

The truth is that we really should. Western civilization was first begun there, and has unfortunately, all in the name of the welfare state.

Also, we tend to follow their idiotic example, regardless how brain dead it is. So I personally would like for them to learn to thrive, if for no other reason to show that there is a better way than Collectivism.

However, it looks like they are determined to destroy themselves.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#9
Hmm.... about this term "Self-Suicide" ... it is just as bad as "People's Democracy"!

The word Suicide already incorporates "Self". S6

As for giving or not giving shit: everyone has a right to die. The Western civilization (both Europe and the US) are exercising it now. One important issue is that they get replaced by something sensible; the other is making every possible effort to speed up the demise of what has become a drag on humanity.
Sanders 2020

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)