Is the problem with the US, too much democracy?

[Mexican_Hippie]

You must be the change you wish to see in the world
- Gandhi

 

[s3779m]

how do we stop the Takers from destroying our country?

I believe the "takers" and those who insist that everything is the takers rights, have already destroyed this country. We are not really discussing how to heal the country but rather how to stop the bleeding. Secession would be one way to start over. Let the blue states form their own country and let them see how their agenda works when no one works for the private sector. They can even be gun free so that there will be no crime.

 

[Mic]

Morals mean nothing with out principles to back them up.

The two words are synonyms. This statement makes no sense.

 

[Mic]

Wow.

Everybody is all about the risks that true freedom entails, unless it applies to elections I guess.

I would rather this country go so far down the drain it requires the reset button than start picking and choosing which citizens can vote.

Pretty slippery slope, and doomed to take us to a place we don't want to go.

It's funny how we use the word freedom. Sure voting is a freedom, but when that vote is used to take away other people's freedom, does that mean we are free?
Tyranny of the majority.

 

[Mic]

I think the fundamental problem is too much democracy.

Yes, the rule of law and Constitutional government must be reinstated, but if the masses can keep voting for representatives and leaders who refuse to abide by the Constitutional Republican form of government, then we will be right back to where we are now.

Which brings me back to my point. We have too much democracy.

Who should be able to vote?

Who should be unable to vote?

Democracy and freedom do not necessarily go hand in hand....unless you are of the political majority.
But Democracy makes a lot of ignorant people feel all good about themselves. I'd take a dictatorship if the dictator was hell bent on enforcing a doctrine of the nature of our Constitution.

 

[Blayglock]

Repeal the 17th Amendment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

It's funny how we use the word freedom. Sure voting is a freedom, but when that vote is used to take away other people's freedom, does that mean we are free?
Tyranny of the majority.

When practiced as it is laid out in the constitution and bill of rights, out government should not be able to infringe on the rights of the people, just as people should not be able to infringe on those rights.

People should vote for who they want, but that person violates their oath of office when they attempt to pass laws which violate the rights (freedoms) of others and at that point should be removed from office.

We have these protections to for just that reason,so that a majority may not infringe on the rights of a minority.

 

[TheDan]

I think the fundamental problem is too much democracy.

The fundamental problem is too much government. No mater what the form of government takes it is going to inclusive of some people and exclusive of others. It is basal human nature to want to use that government force to protect one's interests.

The framers knew this and wanted a government as small as possible. They chose federalism as the overall structure because having the most government close to the people being government (local politics) makes it easier to control. They laid out in the constitution what the federal government is allowed to do, added nine things no government can ever do (including local governments), and added an implicit deny at the end to make sure the federal government cannot do anything that isn't specified (enshrining federalism). The concept was very remarkable for it's time. Problem is that almost immediately it started to be ignored

So what do we do? First, forget about the federal government. There is no political solution to it's problems. The federal government is currently in a debt spiral. It will either be forced to shut down and dramatically scale back to next to nothing (where it should be), or it's going to implode.

Secondly, focus on local government. The government where you live and work is the one that effects you the most in your daily life. If/when the federal government implodes, your local government will be the only one that matters. If you still have some thin hope to "save" the federal government, focusing first on your local government is still a great strategy. Political candidates don't just come out of the aether. They usually get their start as some city council member that no one paid any attention to.

Thirdly, continue to innovate. The more we can do in the private sector, the less we need government for. Stop looking for political solutions to problems and look for technical/collaborative solutions. Using the government to force a solution may seem collaborative and efficient initially, but it just ends up coercing people to go along with it. When people buy into a solution it is more voluntary, effective, and efficient.

 

[seeker_two]

TheDan is the Man....

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Word!

 

[breakingcontact]

Solutions that dont involve confronting the beast and population statistics are solutions that will be successful in a philosophical vacuum.

I need to find some scholarly research about both: how many people actively carried out/supported the Revolution and who could vote at the beginning of the country. Additionally I need to read up on the intent of the founders about the level of democracy they intended on. I think we are past that.

I am wildly excited to see who wins in 2016, how the supreme court changes over the next few years, and if any states radically increase their proper orientation under federalism.

 

[Recoil45]

The biggest problem in America is that people who chose not to work can live better than someone working a minimum wage job. Fix this and you will balance the trade deficit and stop the influx of illegals.

 

[LOCKHART]

The problem as I see it is this: The Demoncraps are ALWAYS gonna pander to the illegals, ALWAYS! They know
that people who come from authoritarian countries tend to vote for them. And, I would like to know, why the
illegals should be moved to the front of the line for immigration? What do they offer other than cheap physical
labor? Most of them are ignorant, and have no qualms about having 8 or 9 kids, that the government will soon
have to take care of, with more food stamps, sect 8 housing, etc. This country is way down the list in math,
science, and medical doctors. Has anyone not noticed how many foreign doctors you see in the hospitals, now?
Has anyone not noticed how many foreign doctors are in private practice, now? This country needs help, right
now, not tomorrow or in 6 months! If you throw your vote away on a third party candidate, that is not doing
anything right now, to get our country back. The demoncraps are for these people: minorities, illegals, and
everyone else AFTER THOSE FIRST TWO GROUPS! Remember this when you go to vote! The repubs are for
the rich guys, but remind yourself before you dismiss that out of hand, the rich are the ones who provide JOBS
in this country! They are also the ones that pay MOST of the taxes, too. This country, after electing one of
the most inept, inexperienced men in HISTORY is on very dangerous ground, at this point in time, and electing
someone from his same party will ensure the destruction of this once great country.

 

[Younggun]

Lol, I don't think the problem people have with republican candidates relates to their I come level. Not on this forum anyways.

 

[Younggun]

You want things fixed, start at a societal level. Talk with people, spend time with people.

You will never be able to force society to live by your standards. The tighter your grip gets, the more you will lose.

You get society in line, PARENTS raising their kids, people WANTING to do the right things, and all these problems will go away with out the government making it worse.

 

[Tejano Scott]

Government isn't the solution, it's the problem.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Do we have a democracy or a constitutional republic?

My proposal is shocking to some of you apparently but its not radical at all.

In a democracy the power is in the will of the people and everyone gets to vote.

In a constitutional republic the power of the people is limited and not everyone gets to vote.

What type of government do we have? What type of government do you want?

The only encouraging things I can find in these troubling times are that people are going to have to: figure out what they truly believe and build community with the like minded.

The Constitution does not explicitly give all the right to vote. In example: U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, which effectively resolved the razor-thin 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush over Al Gore. "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote."


If this is the case then how do we separate the voters from nonvoters? Property ownership? Pay into the Federal Tax system? Convicted felons lose their right to vote, good or bad idea? How about you cannot vote if you draw federal means tested benefits (welfare, Food stamps, etc)


You got to pass a test to drive, to be a plumber or electrician, to be a CPA, Doctor etc.

College degree?

So at this time we have about 107 Million people drawing means tested federal benefits. We have about 101 Million people working and paying taxes. The people drawing means tested benefits can take over in fact they have, Obama's second term proved that. Maybe this is a good plan?

 

[Southpaw]

Solutions that dont involve confronting the beast and population statistics are solutions that will be successful in a philosophical vacuum.

I need to find some scholarly research about both: how many people actively carried out/supported the Revolution and who could vote at the beginning of the country. Additionally I need to read up on the intent of the founders about the level of democracy they intended on. I think we are past that.

I am wildly excited to see who wins in 2016, how the supreme court changes over the next few years, and if any states radically increase their proper orientation under federalism.

I have been reading a book about this and I have to say, I have found it interesting to read how many where for and against independence during the time that led up to it and even after fighting had occurred. I will admit, from my cursory knowledge of the American Revolution, I was thinking it was much more unanimous. It was far from it and many of the arguments for and against independence sounds very much like the same arguments I hear today.

 

[breakingcontact]

I have been reading a book about this and I have to say, I have found it interesting to read how many where for and against independence during the time that led up to it and even after fighting had occurred. I will admit, from my cursory knowledge of the American Revolution, I was thinking it was much more unanimous. It was far from it and many of the arguments for and against independence sounds very much like the same arguments I hear today.

*Public school* taught us it was nearly unanimous for a reason.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

3%...