As anyone who has studied the American system knows, the United States is a constitutional republic. Democracy offers no protection for individual rights; it doesn't prevent Big Government.
I take it a step further, and say that democracy has no worth beyond it's potentcy in protecting freedom and rights.
I would happily have a government composed solely of hereditary aristocrats, provided that they defended my rights to life, liberty, and property; and did not infringe upon those rights themselves.
Of course, hereditary aristocrats have a tendancy to have little concern for rights. Representative democracy remains the most efficient system for maintaining freedom (that is not to say a better system shall not be invented in the future).
"Representative democracy remains the most efficient system for maintaining freedom"
That's not correct. Representive democracy is not a good system for the defense of individual rights or freedom. It is certainly far from "efficient" in achieving those aims. Usually it achieves the opposite of freedom by gradual steps and a steady erosion of individual rights. Look around.
A properly constructed constitutional republic is superior. That system was invented long ago. As you point out, it matters not whether the people vote or government is hereditary so long as individual rights are protected.
We welcome thoughtful disagreement. But we do (ir)regularly moderate comments -- and we *will* delete any with insulting or abusive language. Or if they're just inane. It’s okay to disagree, but pretend you’re having a drink in the living room with the person you’re disagreeing with. This includes me. PS: Have the honesty and courage to use your real name. That gives added weight to any opinion.
As anyone who has studied the American system knows, the United States is a constitutional republic. Democracy offers no protection for individual rights; it doesn't prevent Big Government.
ReplyDeleteSomeone should remind the activist courts over there of that small fact.
ReplyDeleteJC
I take it a step further, and say that democracy has no worth beyond it's potentcy in protecting freedom and rights.
ReplyDeleteI would happily have a government composed solely of hereditary aristocrats, provided that they defended my rights to life, liberty, and property; and did not infringe upon those rights themselves.
Of course, hereditary aristocrats have a tendancy to have little concern for rights. Representative democracy remains the most efficient system for maintaining freedom (that is not to say a better system shall not be invented in the future).
America is the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave.
ReplyDeleteLong live George Bush and all the incoming future presidents.
Hanso
ReplyDelete"Representative democracy remains the most efficient system for maintaining freedom"
That's not correct. Representive democracy is not a good system for the defense of individual rights or freedom. It is certainly far from "efficient" in achieving those aims. Usually it achieves the opposite of freedom by gradual steps and a steady erosion of individual rights. Look around.
A properly constructed constitutional republic is superior. That system was invented long ago. As you point out, it matters not whether the people vote or government is hereditary so long as individual rights are protected.
LGM
LGM
ReplyDeleteSorry for my miswording. When I said Representative democracy, I thought rule of law would be assumed.
A rule of law meritocracy would be best in my opinion, but I have never seen a way to accurately measure merit.
LOL !
ReplyDeleteI wrote not pc instead of Hanso. Silly me!