Why is democracy special

[Lost_Wanderer]

Let’s be clear here, governmental systems in themselves arnt nessecarily evil. The fallen human nature of man is what causes them to become corrupted and evil.

I’ll take any discussion on critiquing current systems of government over the main subject of parody in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Nobody here is saying that these forms are perfect but they’re far better than the Dark Ages. Solving today’s politics with a return to monarchy is like bringing back Hitler to overthrow Obama.

 

[LoganBice]

I’ll take any discussion on critiquing current systems of government over the main subject of parody in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Nobody here is saying that these forms are perfect but they’re far better than the Dark Ages. Solving today’s politics with a return to monarchy is like bringing back Hitler to overthrow Obama.

No I completely agree with you! I’m not supporting monarchy. I’m just saying monarchy works with a moral king just as democracy works with a moral people. When the majority of people lose sight of God democracy fails and we can see that happening in the west right now. I don’t think we need to bring back some old form of government to fix it but we need to pray and vote like Catholics to try and redeem it.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

No I completely agree with you! I’m not supporting monarchy. I’m just saying monarchy works with a moral king just as democracy works with a moral people. When the majority of people lose sight of God democracy fails and we can see that happening in the west right now. I don’t think we need to bring back some old form of government to fix it but we need to pray and vote like Catholics to try and redeem it.

I don’t disagree either but people like the OP seem to ignore the point you just highlighted (and I just bolded). It’s an issue of concentrating political power. Corrupt one person in a democracy (and I simply say this by the loosest, most general understanding of the word) and change is hardly imminent. But corrupt the king and the whole kingdom is damned.

As an individual, I value my rights far too much to simply gamble them on the latter.

 

[LoganBice]

I don’t disagree either but people like the OP seem to ignore the point you just highlighted (and I just bolded). It’s an issue of concentrating political power. Corrupt one person in a democracy (and I simply say this by the loosest, most general understanding of the word) and change is hardly imminent. But corrupt the king and the whole kingdom is damned.

As an individual, I value my rights far too much to simply gamble them on the latter.

Very true. Heavily centralized power is playing with fire. I could be great for 50 years until the next King and then very evil for the next reign.

 

[thinkandmull]

I see your Bible and raise you a simple textbook example from actual history:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/uploads/pics/H8i.jpg

And just for laughs, I’ll throw in a not-so-subtle reference from fiction:

http://rockpaperwatch.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ojw2b1mivw7e06xjmt151.jpg

I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t vote for either.

Speaking of which though, isn’t Biblical/medieval monarchy a pretty dead deal already? Do we have to mull about the definition of democracy to see that any 21st century political system where citizens vote a candidate can at least exercise the same freedom to vote against them should they fail? I can’t see a royal tyrant being removed just as easily.

And a good king COULDN’T be dethroned, one say against abortion. I don’t think it matters what political system you have

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

And a good king COULDN’T be dethroned, one say against abortion. I don’t think it matters what political system you have

I’m confused. You’re contradicting yourself here. First you say the political system doesn’t matter. And yet, here you are advocating monarchy which is a political system in of itself.

More than that, it’s officially proven to be a bad one. Hope for a good king all you want but that was hardly the case in history. Worst still, people suffered in ways that are unimaginable to those of us who have been sheltered by the protections of today’s current systems of government. My rights will not be gambled on the mere hope that a single individual, who would have the power to sentence me to death among other things, will be a ‘good person.’

I swear the day monarchists have their way is the day I’ll wear a dragon costume and kidnap the first pretty princess in sight.

 

[decatholic]

Is it really true that democracy is so special? After all, who is to say that the masses are usually better morally than a small group or king? Ecclesiastes says that a nation is blessed if the prince is of royal descent instead of the son of a servant. Sounds very un-American. I think American conservatives get too caught up in the idea that our culture is so amazing…

I’ll respond to the tone of the original post. The US is not a democracy so your underlying view is not defined with accuracy - not that you as a person are not accurate. I imagine you might be less than 40 years old and were not taught American history. (Really- again just my assumption of facts which I may be totally wrong)

Masses are not moral- individuals are. Groupthink is from masses and tends to democracy; is without foundational morals in that by its nature- (Imagine that someone proposes an idea that you think is quite poor. However, everyone else in the group agrees with the person who suggested the idea and the group seems set on pursuing that course of action- this has no moral foundation) it removes the individual in benefit of the group.

Ecclesiastes was not an American so his point of view would not be american.

Culture from as defined by Bing, “shared beliefs and values of group: the beliefs, customs, practices, and social behavior of a particular nation or people” To misapply this to conservatives is incomplete.

My guess and hope is you are sorting out what type of government works best for mans freedom. The founding fathers gave us a never before constitution. Without the US, where would the world be? Please understand democracy is not ethical or moral.

Woodrow Wilson concluded that Americans must overcome their sentimentalism toward the past and fundamentally change their government, making it in theory as powerful as the socialists of his day speculated. In this unpublished essay written before he was 31, Wilson advocates “practical means of realizing for society the principles of socialism” by unshackling state power. Having eradicated the significance of individual rights for democracy, he will go on in his subsequent writings to eliminate the separation of powers and unleash unlimited majority party government. Wilson, the democrat, will bring practicality to the demands of socialism.

Democracy as defined is the seed of socialism, facism, and communism.

 

[petra22]

Speaking of which though, isn’t Biblical/medieval monarchy a pretty dead deal already? Do we have to mull about the definition of democracy to see that any 21st century political system where citizens vote a candidate can at least exercise the same freedom to vote against them should they fail? I can’t see a royal tyrant being removed just as easily.

Hey, isn’t that what makes democracy special??? I’ll vote for that (if it’s an honest, fair and square kind of vote!)

 

[petra22]

Actually, the US is a constitutional republic.

Except some are trying to throw out the constitution part on account of it’s old and obsolete…

 

[decatholic]

Hey, isn’t that what makes democracy special??? I’ll vote for that (if it’s an honest, fair and square kind of vote!)

Democracy does allow for voting; however, the US is not a democracy. The majority who vote make laws in a democracy. If enough people vote to remove or change, lets say people over sixty five, then it stands. Yes, in the world you suggest it allows for a contra vote of a new majority.
If a majority vote that no more votes can be tendered on any issue, then the majority stands in a democracy.

id est, quid sit

I read the tone, (and it’s probably MY filter) of the original poster as complaining- seeking Hope and Change (yes I guess voted for the current administration) and naive as to what democracy is. I read it as a complaint- in light of the comments that followed in his/her message.

The original poster remains absent to define the vision of democracy (perhaps like Lord of the Flies).

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Hey, isn’t that what makes democracy special??? I’ll vote for that (if it’s an honest, fair and square kind of vote!)

Obviously or otherwise the likes of Susan B. Anthony and the Civil Rights movement were all for nothing. Alas, people like to construe vote as ‘mob rule.’ Ironically, this same ‘amoral mob’ is comprised of the same individuals who are then suddenly moral when one advocates for monarchy. LOL, whut?

Setting aside the labels of democracy, republic, constitution, parliament, etc, the fact is these are all used to describe current forms of government. The decentralization of power and the right to transfer that power through this so-called ‘mob-rule’ process is something they all have in common. Anyone can spot holes in it all day but it’s nowhere near the number of holes in an obsolete political system where an absolute ruler is decided purely based on his/her DNA and delusions of personal divinity.

 

[decatholic]

Obviously or otherwise the likes of Susan B. Anthony and the Civil Rights movement were all for nothing. Alas, people like to construe vote as ‘mob rule.’ Ironically, this same ‘amoral mob’ is comprised of the same individuals who are then suddenly moral when one advocates for monarchy. LOL, whut?

Setting aside the labels of democracy, republic, constitution, parliament, etc, the fact is these are all used to describe current forms of government. The decentralization of power and the right to transfer that power through this so-called ‘mob-rule’ process is something they all have in common. Anyone can spot holes in it all day but it’s nowhere near the number of holes in an obsolete political system where an absolute ruler is decided purely based on his/her DNA and delusions of personal divinity.

**Democracy : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (it’s not mob-rule rather a majority). **

Are you suggesting we move to fascism and socialism? Definitions are very important in dialog and to set them aside is poor rhetoric.

What makes a system obsolete? My own concern is that the purported Hope and Change is a movement away from the Constitution into a democracy based upon majority rule. Really we are moving to a fascist state-government owns; you produce what the government orders as appropriate, just and needed for society. That is not freedom.

The electoral college is a target of elimination so as to ‘democratize’ our elections. By doing that, destroying the foundation of our representative republic, you destroy freedom and rights of the individual. Democracy- majority rule- does not protect individual rights.

 

[thinkandmull]

I’m confused. You’re contradicting yourself here. First you say the political system doesn’t matter. And yet, here you are advocating monarchy which is a political system in of itself.

More than that, it’s officially proven to be a bad one. Hope for a good king all you want but that was hardly the case in history. Worst still, people suffered in ways that are unimaginable to those of us who have been sheltered by the protections of today’s current systems of government. My rights will not be gambled on the mere hope that a single individual, who would have the power to sentence me to death among other things, will be a ‘good person.’

I swear the day monarchists have their way is the day I’ll wear a dragon costume and kidnap the first pretty princess in sight.

It’s just as likely that a king will be good as that the majority will be good

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Are you suggesting we move to fascism and socialism?

Is that what MLK fought for? I know what he didn’t fight for. Monarchy.

Definitions are very important in dialog and to set them aside is poor rhetoric.

Not when those with different definitions of democracy all agree that monarchy is worse.

It’s just as likely that a king will be good as that the majority will be good

Historical facts frighten you don’t they?

 

[decatholic]

Is that what MLK fought for? I know what he didn’t fight for. Monarchy.

King was a socialist. That’s what he fought for: I work- you eat. That is socialism

Not when those with different definitions of democracy all agree that monarchy is worse.
Compared to democracy - which you fail to define or at least I’ve never read your working definition- is worse than a monarch.

Historical facts frighten you don’t they?

Which ones? Woodrow Wilson, Facist Hitler?, Martin Luther? Historical facts like?
The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society Hardcover – by Brad S. Gregory

History is nothing to fear since the event happened. Its trajectory is another case to be concerned with.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

King was a socialist. That’s what he fought for: I work- you eat. That is socialism

Really? I thought it was it the belief that the white man isn’t better than the black man. Any man who boldly declares “God made me king” is no king and the same person who calls me a ‘bloody peasant’ doesn’t make me less than he is. My entire country owes its freedom to the sweet death of such monarchy.

Given that racism is often either the bastard child or creepy cousin of monarchy, I have to wonder what would you suggest other than a backwards step to it, hm?

Compared to democracy - which you fail to define or at least I’ve never read your working definition- is worse than a monarch.

I already defined it to be as loose as possible and for a good reason. One confuses democracy with a republic another brings up the constitution. I’ll tell you what you won’t hear though and never will: Crowns, thrones, and princes/princesses. That system is dead solely because it concentrates power into nothing short of a blind gamble with our individual rights as the currency. Worse still, I see no justification for selecting a ruler other than either “God says so” or “my Daddy was King so there!” Look at the Mongol Empire, biggest land empire in history but it didn’t even last two centuries purely because of succession issues.

Monarchy was already on its deathbed three centuries from our own time. The various systems that replaced have evolved into what rules countries today. You can criticize your own definition of democracy all you want. I wouldn’t care because nothing in what you’ve said indicates we should all go back to kissing the boots of pompous royals with god-complex.

 

[Paleocon]

Is it really true that democracy is so special? After all, who is to say that the masses are usually better morally than a small group or king? Ecclesiastes says that a nation is blessed if the prince is of royal descent instead of the son of a servant. Sounds very un-American. I think American conservatives get too caught up in the idea that our culture is so amazing…

Democracy on a large scale is foolish. It’s simply absurd to expect hundreds of millions of people to all be sufficiently concerned with issues of national importance.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Democracy on a large scale is foolish. It’s simply absurd to expect hundreds of millions of people to all be sufficiently concerned with issues of national importance.

Yes,Paleocon, it’s me Zoltan…and yes

 

[YoungTradCath]

I don’t think modern liberal democracy is special. I just think we have found it useful for doing what we as people living in modern liberal democracies want, which is not always good.

It’s funny because a lot of righties will harp on about America as if it is the best thing to have ever happened to the world, whilst the philosophers whose theoretical world they live in were far more partial to speaking about democracy blithely and with a sort of resignation. I’m not talking about all Enlightenment people here but some of them.

For the record I don’t really care to talk about MLK, as he does not really fit what I would call a definition of democracy. We may say he was a democratic exemplar, but then let’s also talk about I don’t know, George I.

 

[Bran_Stark]

Democracy can certainly be a useful tool, and it’s possible to have a moral and Christian democracy, but I would very fiercely deny that democracy is a good in itself. Despite what the Declaration of Independence may claim, there is no inherent reason why a government must have “the consent of the governed” in order to be legitimate. The right to rule comes from above, not below, as per Romans 13.