Is the problem with the US, too much democracy?

[ElevenBravo]

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.

illegal aliens can't vote.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

illegal aliens can't vote.

Are you saying they can't vote or they don't vote, big difference...they can't vote, but in fact many do vote....

 

[TheDan]

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

I would postulate that the government does in fact operate in a philosophical vacuum

I get what you're trying to say here, tho... To that I say fight your enemies where they are not.

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.

As MH sated, it was roughly 3% of the population that carried out the revolution. There were a lot more who were opposed. The vast majority was apathetic; neither the crown nor a new government would really have any effect on their lives.

Who could vote depended on the state. Some allowed most everyone to vote; others were much more restrictive. That's what is great about federalism. Not every state should be a cookie cutter of the next.

 

[Southpaw]

3%...

So we would need 10 million or so folks to overly agree on something?
Things are going to have to get a lot worse for that many to see the light.

 

[AustinN4]

Most seniors(ones I know) vote against any new tax the folks who vote for bonds are normally liberals and those living in apartments along with low income people who never pay taxes except sales.

As another old guy, I totally agree with this statement. I have lived in Austin for nearly 30 years and I have voted against every bond election we have had.

 

[Younggun]

Check it out BC.

An interesting article covering voting practices and a little insight in to the opinions of a couple of founding fathers during the colonial and revolutionary periods.

Voting in Early America : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site

 

[breakingcontact]

Check it out BC.

An interesting article covering voting practices and a little insight in to the opinions of a couple of founding fathers during the colonial and revolutionary periods.

Voting in Early America : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site

Thanks. Certainly interesting. It also brings us back to government being ordained by God.

 

[Younggun]

I guess I missed that part....

 

[breakingcontact]

I guess I missed that part....

Oh boy. Wait until I get in front of my computer!

 

[breakingcontact]

Here are my main thoughts. I discuss 16th century religious political thought that inspired the political reformers and revolutionaries of the 17th and 18th centuries. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin are the prime reformers im discussing here. They each vary to some extent in their support or advocation of the following but generally speaking here goes.

- Religious reformers from 16th century precipitated political
reformers in 17th and 18th centuries

- Reformers wanted two kingdoms, parallel, each governing their own sphere. Church and state.

- This was interpreted differently in different places in different
ways and lead to different results

- People are inherently depraved

- People need Godly authority over them

- natural law doesn't work due to the sin nature, people aren't
capable of governing themselves

- Government is ordained by God

- Separation of church and state but not separation between church and God

- State exists to protect the church, but not carry out the church's action

- State to protect humanity within Christian view

- People have the right to remove ungodly government (this varies)

- rejection of monarchy, unless that monarch is

- aristocracy is the best form of government as the best rise, better
than monarchy

- in a democracy power is most likely to end up in the hands of the worst

This is why our founders set up a Constitutional Republican form of government that wasnt fully participatory, same thing on the state levels. It was a reflection of what I listed above.

Why am I talking about the 16th century religious and political reformers? Because that is where 17th and 18th century thought came from and it's what inspired our form of government.

 

[Younggun]

Yeah, that's quite the conclusion you've drawn.

I'll get back to you when I get done watching YouTube and can go through that post piece by piece.

 

[breakingcontact]

Yeah, that's quite the conclusion you've drawn.

I'll get back to you when I get done watching YouTube and can go through that post piece by piece.

Eh. Not just some conclusion ive drawn. Its history. I said it is what the reformers envisioned, it was taken and applied differently in different countries. Cult of Reason, Reign of Terror French Revolution style...which went real quickly from monarchy to anarchy to dictatorship (with some democracy in there somewhere) to our US version which was envisioned differently in different states even. Ah...federalism.
This idea that man is good and can exercise that goodness through democracy is false. Its never worked out and it is currently failing us as well in the US in 2014.

 

[LOCKHART]

I work in auto parts, and about 15 years ago, an hispanic lady, probably in her early
fifties, was waiting for her part, and asked me if I spoke spanish. I laughed and said
"probably just enough to get me into trouble" She didnt see any humor in that, and
told me in no uncertain terms that "you whites stole this land from the mexicans, and we
are gonna take it back, without ever firing a shot!" By god, I think that woman was
correct, and we are allowing it to happen! I did tell her "lady, we didnt steal it from you,
we kicked your ass and took it!" She didnt like that, but by that time, I was ready to
tell her to get her fat butt out, and not to come back.

 

[Younggun]

Her historical knowledge is flawed.

Mexicans revolted with Americans who had moved to the area. The land was stole. from Mexicans, Mexicans won their independence from Mexico with the help of Americans.

The people formed their own republic, and later joined the unites states.

 

[Southpaw]

I work in auto parts, and about 15 years ago, an hispanic lady, probably in her early
fifties, was waiting for her part, and asked me if I spoke spanish. I laughed and said
"probably just enough to get me into trouble" She didnt see any humor in that, and
told me in no uncertain terms that "you whites stole this land from the mexicans, and we
are gonna take it back, without ever firing a shot!" By god, I think that woman was
correct, and we are allowing it to happen! I did tell her "lady, we didnt steal it from you,
we kicked your ass and took it!" She didnt like that, but by that time, I was ready to
tell her to get her fat butt out, and not to come back.

Sounds like Julian Castro's mother.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Eh. Not just some conclusion ive drawn. Its history. I said it is what the reformers envisioned, it was taken and applied differently in different countries. Cult of Reason, Reign of Terror French Revolution style...which went real quickly from monarchy to anarchy to dictatorship (with some democracy in there somewhere) to our US version which was envisioned differently in different states even. Ah...federalism.
This idea that man is good and can exercise that goodness through democracy is false. Its never worked out and it is currently failing us as well in the US in 2014.

The reformation was an influence, but not the entire influence. There were Catholics that both signed the Declaration of Independence and served as Commodores and Generals in the Continental Army. Jesuits monasteries were also notable for their farming and providing supplies to rebels. The British army did not allow them to join at first, but later relented. They were generally shunned, but allowed by both sides since they were needed.

Some were actually ex-communicated by the bishop of Quebec for their participation as rebels (and later their ex-communication revoked). Within the Catholic Church there was the same debate on the role of government vs religion playing out as you saw in the political arena. One could argue that was in part due the the reformation-minded that stayed with the church rather than separating.

There were also key American leaders without deep religious affiliation at all, and some were simply deists. The early days also saw much oppression of religion rather than religious freedom in America, with certain colonies basically only allowing certain denominations to hold any power. Hardly a political philosophy consistent with true separation of church and state.

Point being, I think the influence was much broader than just the reformation. In general America in the early days was filled with people who were self sufficient and longed for freedom and property ownership. They were the ones who longed for self-determination enough to go to another untamed continent and try to make it work (Interestingly Calvinism in some ways the opposite of self-determination). Regardless of religious background that need for freedom and self-determination is the single-most distinctive characteristic of those who came to America.

 

[breakingcontact]

^ Of course a Catholic would say this.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

^ Of course a Catholic would say this.

Is it not true? lol

Point being, it was more about freedom than religious conviction.


ETA: Plus I couldn't let y'all take all the credit!!! - lol

 

[breakingcontact]

Is it not true? lol

Point being, it was more about freedom than religious conviction.

Our nation was born out of the Protestant Reformation.

As far as the narrative you mentioned I know thats the current zeitgeist amongst the libertarian set much as a revisionist view is popular amongst the liberal set. I dont know how accurate either view really is. I know we all like the narrative of intrepid settlers casting their lot and heading out into the great unknown. Yes thats part of the story but there was an impetus at the time (propagated by the contemporary aristocracy perhaps) and it all happened in a political and religious context, not in a vacuum.

 

[AustinN4]

So we would need 10 million or so folks to overly agree on something?

Not just that, but to also fight for it.