Printable View
Yet isn't majority rule one of the basic tenets of democracy? Should we switch to a different system?
Rhetorical question. Because we already do have a different system. This nation, at least, is run by those with the most accumulated wealth. It is no longer one person, one vote (if it ever was, doubtful). Yet in terms of evolution, given human nature, I can't see it going any other way. Nor can I see any way to avoid violent conflict in the future over it. A good reason to live on an island.
The US was never intended to be a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. From the link...
"Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is limited to electing representatives who legislate within the limits of an overarching constitutional law that a simple majority cannot modify."
We are not a democracy, we're a republic.Quote:
Originally Posted by puglogic
It's important to draw a distinction between (a) the majority unlimited, in a democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of the individual and the minority, and (b) the majority limited, in a republic under a written constitution safeguarding the rights of the individual and the minority.
Ben Franklin famously said that the founding fathers had created "a Republic, if you can keep it". He was a bright guy and understood the havoc a direct democracy would cause. We should be so wise.
Edited to add: Sorry Gregg, you beat me to it and I didn't see your post until too late.
Most modern democracies have historically (yes as recent as a decade or two ago!) contained safeguards of various rights. Do they now? Hmm, well they aren't all as far gone as the U.S. is on this matter, though many are going in the general direction toward losing civil liberties. So yea the U.S. has completely jumped the shark but the trend is widespread.
There is minimal evidence that our problem on the federal level is an excess of direct democracy (in California - ok well yes the state government of California is evidence of the havok of direct democracy - propositions have really messed up the state). And yes propositions actually ARE direct democracy - the real thing (although often coopted by corporations), actually worthy of the term, with all it's flaws.Quote:
Ben Franklin famously said that the founding fathers had created "a Republic, if you can keep it". He was a bright guy and understood the havoc a direct democracy would cause. We should be so wise.
But anyway the devolution of the U.S. is a different matter ... we're not a democracy ... we're not even a republic .. we're an empire, a plutocratic, militaristic, propagandized, increasingly authoritarian and totalitarian, EMPIRE .... with mostly ritualistic elections held every few years.
And yea it took me the last month or two to actually see that in total (because I *believed* in many of the ideals this country was founded on once - even though I started feeling bad whenever I saw a flag under Bush etc. etc.) but ..... that is what the U.S. is now.
This got lost in the discussion but it really gets down to the crux of the issue. Entitlements aren't just for the poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by rosebud
What is stopping "the poor" from using the infrastructure to gain wealth? It's there for bae, it's there for me, it's there for "the poor."Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
I think that this is essential.Quote:
Sure there is, the question is, who pays for it?
There is a safety net for everyone, the problem is, some people end up losing their savings or other personal property before the safety net kicks in.
I believe the question is better framed as, how can one achieve the benefit without paying the price? -- Alan
Nothing - other than the difficulties of going from poor to wealthy - some actually do. But is that what infrastructure should be for? Something everyone is forced to contribute to so that the few that gain wealth can benefit at the expense of the others?Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
It pays to remember that as "the few" benefit from the use of the collective infrastructure they will pay a heavier burden to support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
To answer the direct question of "is that what infrastructure should be for?" My answer is emphatically YES! Infrastructure equals opportunity. We get mired down in the fact that some have easier access to it than others, but the bright truth is that nearly everyone in this country does have access. Almost everyone can get to a highway, have power delivered to their house, connect to the internet, ship goods by road or rail, etc. Do we need to improve the safety and efficiency of every aspect of our infrastructure? Yes. Do we need to continue to work until everyone has access to it? Yes. We have a great base system, we just need to bring it up to speed for a modern world.
So we have one vote for forced redistribution. And that our infrastructure be treated as an entitlement. As for the wealthy few paying a heavier burden, that's a very hard number to slice - do they? In shear numbers of dollars, yes. As a percentage of income? Probably not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregg