Trickle down economics

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesATyler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is tempting to be a social engineer but I don’t think it wise to consider the widespread concern of the sick and poor as a body, and become pushy and unfair with the individual citizens, whether they be upper, middle, or lower class, or even the sick and hungry. Everyone needs to have some fairness. I operate on the small. If I am talking to a very wealthy man I will not try to take anything from him that he doesn’t want to give and if I am talking to a very poor man, I will give him something if he asks, because I can do with less, usually.
 
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, acknowledged that the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional… He was a great resident, but he certainly toed the line
 
The EP being “unconstitutional” is irrelevant. Slavery was an intrinsically unjust institution, so any laws upholding it were ipso facto null and void by virtue of there being inimical unto the Law of God. The moral Law of God overrules any man made laws if they are in direct contradiction.

If an Amendment was made to the Constitution which said “every father in America is to execute his firstborn child by hanging”, then fighting against that unjust law may be technically “unconstitutional”, but that would be irrelevant as the law would be objectively evil to begin with.
 
Last edited:
In what context, though? as Catholics, yes. As Constitutional Americans… it gets fuzzy.

And his suspension of Habeas Corpus was still illegal and injust.
 
Spyridon said:
40.png
Lemuel:
We don’t have a democratic government. Nothing about our government is democratic
Click to expand...
That’s simply not true.

Our Republic was built on Democratic principles, it is a Constitutional Representative Democracy as well as a Federal Republic.

To claim the US is a pure democracy and not a Republic would be erroneous.

Likewise, to claim the US is a Republic but that there is nothing democratic about it is also erroneous.
Click to expand...
Technically we are not a Representative Democracy. We are a Republic based on democratic principles, but we are not a technical Representative Democracy.

In a Representative Democracy, the representative must poll the people in his district and vote the way those polls tell him to vote. Or the issue is voted on in the local legislatures and the representative casts the vote based on the votes at home.

The Electoral college (in practice) functions as a Representative Democracy. It’s the only true form a Representative Democracy we have at the national level.

On the other hand, in a Republic, the representative is voted into office and is allowed to use the information at hand to cast a vote according to his conscience (or according to his political party). Even though the rep may run polls back at home, the rep is NOT required to vote according to the will of the people on any particular issue. Then, when it’s time for reelection, the people vote him in or out of office based on the overall job their rep did.

However, in a representative democracy, the rep is simply a body who funnels the will of the people back at home, and his personal views are irrelevant.

Therefore, in the US, we are a Republic (with democratic values) but not a true democracy nor true representative democracy.

God bless
 
The overall point of my post stands even if that’s true though.

To say there’s nothing democratic about the US as @Lemuel asserted is an erroneous position to take up.

We are a Republic founded on Democratic principles.
 
Last edited:
That is, to me, a very unusual definition of representative democracy. In my experience representative democracy is contrasted with direct democracy (the Ancient Greek system) and certainly doesn’t entail the representative simply following the dictates of his constituency. Quite the opposite.

The classic definition is Burke to the Electors of Bristol:

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament…
 
PickyPicky said:
That is, to me, a very unusual definition of representative democracy. In my experience representative democracy is contrasted with direct democracy (the Ancient Greek system) and certainly doesn’t entail the representative simply following the dictates of his constituency. Quite the opposite.

The classic definition is Burke to the Electors of Bristol:

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament…
Click to expand...
Well for one, that’s because you live in the United Kingdom, which is NOT a Republic and has worked hard to prevent republicanism from taking over.

The United Kingdom isn’t a Representative Democracy either. You are a Constitutional Monarchy with democratic principles.

Don’t get me wrong, both the US and UK use some representative democracy concepts. But a TRUE Representative Democracy is the opposite of “Burke to the Electors of Bristol”
 
For what it’s worth (probably very little), I still stand by my assertion that the United States is a Federal Republic and a Constitutional Representative Democracy.
 
PickyPicky said:
I fear you are mistaken. Here is a paper which not only states outright that in a representative democracy the choices are made by the representatives, but finds that this most certainly does not reflect which the citizens would have chosen to do:

https://economics.osu.edu/sites/economics.osu.edu/files/Representative Democracy.pdf
Click to expand...
  1. The paper you quote is an Economics paper, not a Political Philosophy paper.
  2. I am a Political Science major, with a specialty in Political Philosophy - so this topic is in my wheel house.
Is it common for people to call the form of government that both the US and UK have “Representative Democracy”? Yes it is. But it’s not technically correct.

Actually, in the United States, the argument of “Republic” vs “Representative Democracy” plays itself out in national politics all the time. The Democrats, for example, often speak about “voter mandates” when they win elections - because most democrats tend to view America as a Representative Democracy.

Republicans in Congress on the other hand rarely speak about “mandates” because they typically view America as a Republic and that they are selected to vote their conscience based on the information they have. And this often ticks off the libertarian arm of the Republican Party because they tend to view the nation as a “Representative Democracy” too.

So, if you want to say that “the US and UK have a form of representative democracy,” that would be a correct statement. But if you were to say “the United States is a ‘Representative Democracy,’” that would not be a 100% accurate statement.

Finally, since this is not the purpose of this thread, I don’t want to continue to derail this thread. Please feel free to PM me for further conversation, if you like.

God Bless.
 
I love England, and the English. Always have. However, Phil is completely correct on all counts.

http://www.england.mu/articles/england-form-government.html

England Form of Government
The England form of Government is a constitutional monarchy, which combines a monarch head of state with a parliamentary system. While many consider the England form of government a democracy, which it is in practice, the Queen of England has many titular roles and is officially the head of state, although in practice, she has little political power or influence. The true influence and power in the England form of government comes from the prime minister and the Parliament.

England is most definitely a constitutional monarchy. I am a teacher. The United states is a Republic. Everyone especially US citizens and English subjects should know this. I certainly hope her Majesty doesn’t see this thread!

God save the Queen!

BTW a few (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)of my many favorite pictures of her(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
All right. One more word. I am in no way denying that the United States is a Republic (a Federal Republic, moreover; indeed a Constitutional Federal Republic), or that the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy. My view is that they are both also Representative Democracies. The UK is also a Parliamentary Democracy. These things are not mutually exclusive (in my view).

I’m fond of England, too. 🙂
 
Last edited:
I also just wanted to point out that it also seems wrong to be in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy to care for the poor for another reason. The socialist still wants his shiny new car, fine clothes, watch, house, and sweet cell phone. He wants to turn his money over to the business man and take his goods. Then he sends his government representative back to collect much of the profits to turn over to the poor. If the socialist wants to help the poor so much why doesn’t he give it to the poor himself? He doesn’t want to actually give up anything does he? If that is the way the socialist wants it then it is fair that the rich receive the heavenly treasure as well, don’t you think? He is the only one who actually paid.
 
We’re a constitutional republic. Democratic Republic is like saying a blind person with good eyesight. We don’t have democracy in this country. The founding fathers abjured democracies. Andrew Jackson coined the phrase for political gain and it somehow stuck.

What is democratic about this country?
 
PickyPicky said:
All right. One more word. I am in no way denying that the United States is a Republic (a Federal Republic, moreover; indeed a Constitutional Federal Republic), or that the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy. My view is that they are both also Representative Democracies. The UK is also a Parliamentary Democracy. These things are not mutually exclusive (in my view).

I’m fond of England, too. 🙂
Click to expand...
PickyPicky, I’m going to be nitpick here. 🙂

Again, you can say that they are both FORMS or TYPES of “representative democracies.” But again, neither are pure “Representative Democracies” from the point of view of political philosophy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top