Thursday, 18 February 2010

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule..."



"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." 

 - Thomas Jefferson 

28 comments:

  1. “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”WINSTON CHURCHILL

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi PC,

    Have you put this quote up by Jefferson because you don't believe in democracy?

    ReplyDelete
  3. .... which is probably why Jefferson and the other founding fathers made it hard as dammit to take away the 49%'s right through the Constitution. Great quote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's actually never been proven that Jefferson ever even said this, but the thought is correct. We are a Constitutional Republic governed by "the rule of law". At least, that's what we are SUPPOSED to be, however we are not anymore. We have indeed become a democracy, which is in fact the majority taking the rights (and money) from the 49%. Too often "Democracy" is synonymous with tyranny and socialism. Quoted from a great link (http://www.whatourforefathersthought.com/DemoRep.html)..."Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority."

      Delete
  4. Tom Hunter said:

    Hmmmm - well this link may be indicative - from the NYT no less:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/politics/16teaparty.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all


    “That is often the point when Tea Party supporters say they began listening to Glenn Beck. With his guidance, they explored the Federalist Papers, exposés on the Federal Reserve, the work of Ayn Rand and George Orwell. Some went to constitutional seminars. Online, they discovered radical critiques of Washington on Web sites like ResistNet.com (’Home of the Patriotic Resistance’) and Infowars.com (’Because there is a war on for your mind.’)

    ReplyDelete
  5. The approach of David Barstow of the New York Times is to point out that some Tea Partiers are nutty, and smear all other Tea Partiers by implication and guilt by association.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lucia Maria

    You ask a good question. It is not an issue of believing in democracy, it is an issue of believing in or rather advocating liberty. And democracy (which is mob rule) does not equal liberty.

    Have a look at these two posts which should give you some background on better ways to organise and elect governments.

    Democracy

    Constitution
    Julian

    ReplyDelete
  7. Given the choice between having the vote, and having constitutionally protected free speech, human rights and property rights, I think I'd pick the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Almost nobody who votes gets the government they want anyway, so I agree with Blair.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And who decides what is written in the constitution?

    If it is chosen and protected by >50% of the population then it is democracy.

    If it is less then it is tyranny of the minority.

    Can't have it both ways!

    BTW/ who ensures that the constitution is followed and not changed in the USA? Actually it can be changed by 60% of the Congress and House of Reps can't it? That is just democracy. It is nothing more.

    You think a constitution is something special but it is only based on the powers that keep it enforced.

    In a Democracy those powers represent 50% of the public.

    In other places constitutions and laws are protected and enforced with no consent at all (Iran, China)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tom Hunter said...
    I agree with Jack that the NYT column I quoted from is the usual smear job against the TeaPartiers - but I still thought it was significant that he had to note those points: baby steps, etc.

    In any case I put forward a similar opinion to this one in one debate last week at Kiwiblog

    ....she had missed the whole point of the US government system: it is deliberately designed to prevent the government – especially the Federal arm – from doing too much. It’s a constitutional republic, which means that democracy does not lead to the 51% mob-thug situation so often wistfully desired here by the Left when it’s their plans on the line.

    The US federal government was meant to be a creaking, inefficient, incrementalist creature that would be restricted to doing only a very few things – and most of those things were focused on defending the liberty of individuals.

    The reason it’s so fucked up now is that over a period of 60 years the Left – firmly convinced of the view that modern, large and complex societies need large, well-funded central government – have gradually grafted (in every sense of the word) more and more responsibilities on to it. In that they’ve been aided and abetted by any number of right-wingers. That approach might work – barely and for relatively short historical periods – in other countries, but it has no hope of working in a nation of 300 million plus people where each state is largely a country in itself, even if the US government was not divided into counter-balancing parts.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Unless of course the democracy is MMP where 5% can take away the rights of the other 95.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sally

    Have you read the Constitution of the United States?

    LGM

    ReplyDelete
  13. The reason the USA has slowly changed despite having a constitution is because it is a democracy.

    In a democracy the law is made by the majority.

    The constitution only stands today because >50% want it to be there. Therefore there is a democracy.

    When will you learn that a constitution is just a piece of paper?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sally

    You have asked a good, and what I consider to be, a very important question.

    As stated in one of those links, the purpose of a constitution is to chain the government up so that it doesn't violate our rights. The Constitution of Iran which you refer to (and of which there are many examples in the world), have only the name "constitution" in common with the concept of "Constitution" to which we are referring. The constitution of Iran, rather than protecting the rights of the citizens from their government, actually provides the means through which the rights of citizens can be violated.

    That is why it is probably better to have no constitution in New Zealand at the moment because if a constitution were to be introduced, it would be unlikely to be one that recognised man's objective rights and would rather be used as a way to entrench free health care, education etc as a fundamental right, something which it is not.

    So yes, people can vote for amendments, or change the ink on the paper with the word constitution on the top. But the moment the ink on the constitutional document changes the nature of the document such that the government would no longer be chained up, is the moment that it ceases to be a constitution.

    And that is why if we were ever lucky to get a true constitution, formed with reference to objective rights, then we would have to be eternally vigilant to ensure that it remained unchanged.

    Julian

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sally

    Again, have you read the US Constitution?

    LGM

    ReplyDelete
  16. Have you read it LGM?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yes.

    What about you, Sally?

    LGM

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sally

    What is the tenth amendment?

    What does it mean?

    Has it been repealed or abolished?

    LGM

    ReplyDelete
  19. LGM,

    What are the fourth, fifth, sixth articles of the US Constitution and what are the and second, third and seventh amendments?

    What do each of them mean?

    Have they been repealed or abolished?

    And don't just copy from the Internet. You haven't even read the US Constitution have you? So you must prove it to us.

    Sally

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sally

    Oh dear. How about you just answer my questions? They are simple enough and I did ask you first. Try to be honest and make an attempt. We can discuss each of the other amendments in turn once we have dealt with the tenth with a little rigour. After all, it directly relates to the topic at hand.

    So, no evasions, no rhetorical tricks, no ad hominem, no smearing, no hiding, no word games, no topic substitution, no deviations, just answer those questions that you were asked. Let's see where that takes our enquiry.

    Are you up to it, Sally?

    LGM

    ReplyDelete
  21. LGM,

    I would like you to answer my question first because it was your idea to answer these questions.

    Anyway, you obviously don't know anything about the US COnstitution so you are just evading the questions. Sad.

    Sally

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm wondering if some of the people on this blog realize that the USA was actually established as a Republic. We may be a Representative democracy, but I cannot tell you the last time that I felt like my interests we being represented by either a President or Congressional member running for office.

    ReplyDelete
  23. ArizonaWildhack19 Aug 2010, 10:31:00

    The quote is NOT a Jefferson quote, it is by Ken Schoolland.

    It expresses exactly the opposite of what Jefferson stood for.

    Please see: Jefferson Encyclopedia

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sally,

    You have been evasive to the 10th Amendmend question while asking LGM to answer your question regarding other sections or clauses or amendments in the constitution.

    The US government exists at the pleasure of 50 independent Republics. Each state has co equal branches, Judicial, Executive and Legislative and does the Federal government can not usurp states individual independence and its peoples rights which are not enumerated in the US Constitution. "The powers NOT DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.

    Also Sally, ours is a Constitutional Republic governed by rule of law. 51% can't invoke their will on 49% and 49 percent can't dictate to the majority either. Also, in order to change/amend the constitution, this is no easy task. Amending the US Constitution requires that 3/4 that is three fourts of the states must ratify the amendments. Now this is not to say this totally disgusting group of corrupt scum in DC care about our nation, its founding priniciples of governnance or for the rule of law, they cede power and authority to the tyrannical dictator of the day and this douchebag rules by edict using the end run around the legislative process, known as fiat and issues an "executive order" shoving his dictatorial unconstitutional law down our collective throats.

    Now there is remedy. There is no better day than today to instruct you to read Thomas Jefferson blueprint for time in history. "When in the course of human events, it becomess necessary...READ the remedy and stop with your nonsense. We can have our nation back if real men of honor and moral code stand again. Ours is a nation that can only succeed if it is governend by honorable honest people. You see now total scum on both sides actively destroying our founders ideals. These current crop are in fact some of the dumbest people ever to serve in contrast to the men of 235 years ago. Drain the swamp alright. The WHOLE swamp. I don't have an account but my name is JAG

    ReplyDelete
  25. The quotation is fake. http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-nothing-more-mob-rule

    ReplyDelete
  26. i disagree with the quotation,
    gta 5 car crashes

    ReplyDelete