Democracy

to continue the debate in a civilized form

previously on DB:

http://www.darkjedibrotherhood.com/dbjedi/....asp?ID=R:10075

So yeah. I'm not quite sure how I got dragged into this

My initial observation was that the DB itself is not a democracy. Unless you choose to interpret 'Democracy' as 'land of sunshine and candies', this is pretty much an unarguable fact.

Now, on the relative merits of democracy:

Make no mistake, I love living in a democracy. Compared to most places in the world it's very nice living, and I'm happy to be empowered with the right to vote. However, this does not mean democracy is free of flaws.

The flaw Malisane recognized is one: being appointed on popular appeal is no guarantee whatsoever that the elected will actually be competent. Too many people want 'a president I can have a beer with'. I don't want that. I want a president (or in my case, prime minister) who can actually do the job. That's what he's meant to do, nothing else. So what if he's an 'ivory tower intellectual'? Elitism is not a bad thing...I prefer a competent surgeon to an untrained one, and similarly I prefer an intelligent ruler to a 'popular' one.

Another flaw ties in with this: the tyranny of the majority. Historically, the majority is not a nice group. They rarely if ever want to share their influence with anyone, and will fight kicking and screaming to retain their privileges. To this end, most democracies are fettered, ensuring that even majority can't do things nilly-willy. A good example is the U.S. constitution guaranteeing free speech so that, regardless of popular sentiment, the majority cannot simply gag its opposition.

To reiterate: Democracy is not necessarily bad, but only if the majority's powers are strictly limited.

Again, food for thought.

i can see another form of democracy, where the election goes as a popularity contest, where the elected officials do anything after you get elected no matter why you voted on that candicate. This is still democracy as i can do the same thing (voting) every 4 year. The press is controlled by the government, the mutlinational businesses controlling your country, manipulating the laws, the government itself. And yet this is still called democracy. And it is not led by the majority, it was voted by the majority, but only a few call it an "elite" uses the government for their own selfish reasons.

i can see another form of democracy, where the election goes as a popularity contest, where the elected officials do anything after you get elected no matter why you voted on that candicate. This is still democracy as i can do the same thing (voting) every 4 year. The press is controlled by the government, the mutlinational businesses controlling your country, manipulating the laws, the government itself. And yet this is still called democracy. And it is not led by the majority, it was voted by the majority, but only a few call it an "elite" uses the government for their own selfish reasons.



It's the second flaw that is mostly fettered. The first...well, the 'man I can have a beer with' was based on the fairly ubiquitous 'Bush is SO much more in touch with the common man' comments I've heard bandied about in '04.

Sad fact is, democracy works, but only if the voting public actually performs effort to maintain it. Each citizen, when they live in a democracy, must do their part. Complaining about multinationals controlling a government is not bad...it may even be true. The fact remains, however, that the people are ultimately responsible for that, since it is them who eventually elect, or not elect, a politician who deals with it.

In the end, democracy is not a cure-all. A democracy will not solve all the world's ills or even most of them. The backlash against 'elites' is exactly a symptom of what's wrong with it. With 'elites', note, I mean the 'ivory tower intellectuals', the people who've spent their lives actually getting educated only to be discounted since 'they lack touch with the common man' and 'we don't need no edumacation'.

I would like to point out that I did ask Kir to remove the medal I got for that work. And I would also like to point out that I did use work that was not mine, even if it was unintentional on my part.

I for one am happy how things turned out and would like to applaud the CoJ for doing the job it was founded to do. And let this be a lesson for everyone... It certainly has been an eye opener for me.

I would like to point out that I did ask Kir to remove the medal I got for that work. And I would also like to point out that I did use work that was not mine, even if it was unintentional on my part.

I for one am happy how things turned out and would like to applaud the CoJ for doing the job it was founded to do. And let this be a lesson for everyone... It certainly has been an eye opener for me.



Technically off-topic, but oh well

Thanks and congratulations can still be posted in the original newspost. This thing is more of a 'tangent' regarding whether or not the DB is a democracy, and whether or not it should be.

Technically off-topic, but oh well

Thanks and congratulations can still be posted in the original newspost. This thing is more of a 'tangent' regarding whether or not the DB is a democracy, and whether or not it should be.



Heh,

Feel free to keep debating the issue, I'll just grab a chair and sit back and enjoy the show.

Ash pulls out a nice comfy chair and sits down in, and pays attention to the debate.

It's the second flaw that is mostly fettered. The first...well, the 'man I can have a beer with' was based on the fairly ubiquitous 'Bush is SO much more in touch with the common man' comments I've heard bandied about in '04.

Sad fact is, democracy works, but only if the voting public actually performs effort to maintain it. Each citizen, when they live in a democracy, must do their part. Complaining about multinationals controlling a government is not bad...it may even be true. The fact remains, however, that the people are ultimately responsible for that, since it is them who eventually elect, or not elect, a politician who deals with it.

In the end, democracy is not a cure-all. A democracy will not solve all the world's ills or even most of them. The backlash against 'elites' is exactly a symptom of what's wrong with it. With 'elites', note, I mean the 'ivory tower intellectuals', the people who've spent their lives actually getting educated only to be discounted since 'they lack touch with the common man' and 'we don't need no edumacation'.



Each citizen gets the right to vote, either they are completely stubborn or not. And until they not get a paper of it, they can vote. Now i ask, when persons who has absolutlley no idea about how the politics, economy works, we talk about millions here in a country which has only 10 million citizen including children, can vote, and select the fate of the country just because one of the candicate says "that man is evil, his program is wrong, we are the good, we will give you everything", and the people belives it, belives it because they arent smart, they are controlled by the TV, NEWS which a way of the manipulation.

I have no problem with the elites, The aristochracy or how it spelled. But not in every country the elite means that. Especially not in the Ex-soviet block. These elite came from the communist era, where after the fall of the Soviet union, they could keep their influence and get rich with their connections when the state sold its belongings to them for a laughable price.

i am happy i can say i live in a democracy instead of a communist dictatorship. Really i am, but i am not happy with the way of my country goes in the name of democracy.

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." ~Winston Churchill


Americans and Britons, let me be the first to tell you in this forum that what you live in is not, per se, a democracy. Americans live in a presidential republic with a consitution, and the British in a constitutionaly monarchy with a parliament. As I know a great deal about the American system and little of the British, I'll be focusing on the American version of "democracy" being tossed around.

America: Democratically-Elected Presidential Representative Republic with a Constitution.

So, first the root of "democracy" in America-- an intelligent (and in my opinion cowardly) man from Britain named John Locke wrote two Treatises on Government, where he asserted that all men have natural rights to life, liberty, and property that existed before the creation of the State (polis), and that men left the "state of nature" and willingly established the Polis to defend their rights-- particularly their right to property. It is through this that he asserted government got its legitimate power from the people, and that when the government failed to protect these rights, the people had the right to revolt.

John Locke had the greatest influence on American political thought of all political philosophers, and his words are what directly inspired Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Here Jefferson asserts that men have their rights before the state is created, by saying that we are endowed by our Creator (Locke's "Nature") with these rights and that they are unalienable. Jefferson goes on to say that when the government fails to secure these rights, it may be justly amended or abolished-- thus the Americans declared independence from Britain for the British failure to secure these rights of Americans.

So, after the Revolution, the Founders face the task of establishing a free, liberal democracy that can justly secure all these unalienable Rights. Obviously, to them, the best way to give freedom to all people is to allow all people to have an equal say in politics. However, the Founders feared democracies. They knew that men act on their passions, and that mobs can be fickle and dangerous. They looked to ancient Greece and Rome as warning signs-- one day the Athenian mob called for the death of Socrates, and the next they were erecting statues in his honor. So, needless to say, pure democracy was "out" for the Founding Fathers.

So then they thought a republic. They look to Rome as an example, and remembered with fear how populist Julius Caesar managed to turn the Roman mob against the corrupt oligarchy that was the Senate, thus eventually paving the way for the death of the Republic and rise of the Empire. No, a Roman-style republic would not do either if all men were not like Cincinnatus or George Washington (who turned down become king of Rome and king of America, respectively).

Furthermore, there is the pesky problem of each of the American colonies claiming to be separate and sovereign states. However, whereas this was the problem with the Articles of Confederation, it became what saved the American Republic from dictatorship.

The Constitution, arguably, is the answer to the question, what is justice? It addresses the natural rights of men and protects them, and has so many separation of powers and checks and balances that it makes it nigh impossible for a dictatorship to arise. The answer to freedom is Federalism. First, power is separated between two governments-- the state government and the federal government. Then, the power in the larger of the two--the federal government--is split into three separate and distinct branches-- the Congress, the President, and the Courts. Furthermore, the power in the most influential of the three branches--Congress--is divided into two houses, both distinct from one another, that makes it difficult for the Congress to take control of the government. This federalist government combines the three archetypes of government-- Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. Monarchy is represented in our executive, aristocracy in the Senate (special note: not since the beginning of the 20th century), and democracy in the House of Representatives.

Power to dramatically influence national politics is further removed from the People, who do NOT directly elect the U.S. President-- the elect representatives to elect the president for them. This is to counter mob rule and passionate whims. And, originally, the U.S. Senate was NOT elected by the People-- it was elected by state legislatures, who were in turn elected by the people. The House of Representatives is, by far, the MOST democratic forum in the USA, because it was originally the only body directly elected by the people. You can tell the Founders feared it, though-- House members only serve for two years before being reelected, meaning they don't have time to sit and do too much.

Faction, which is the worst threat to freedom and defined as one group of people intending to oppress the rights of another group of people, is stopped in its tracks due to this federalism. Given the size and wide-spread needs and wants of Americans living in various places, faction is further stoppered. This is how the separation of powers is maintained. It is further maintained by the ambition of men, which the Founders recognized would stop the people of the branches from giving up their power to any other branch.

So, while the U.S. Republic is far from being perfect, it--as the representative of "democracy" that it is--it fulfills its need and protects the fundamental human rights of its citizens (or at least it is supposed to). And, while the 9/11 attacks were a blow to personal freedoms, the fact that we did not surrender all rights of privacy to the government and start nuking other nations is attributed to this Republic that we have established. Had we been a pure democracy on 9/11, the passions of the American mob would have given the executive tenfold of that which the Congress gave him.

Now, I could also rant about how the 20th Century destroyed American democratic-republicanism, but I think I'll take a break.

Quotes from the Founders:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" --Benjamin Franklin

"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy... It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." --Alexander Hamilton

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." --President Thomas Jefferson

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." --Chief Justice John Marshall

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." --President John Adams


/end PoliSci101



PS: All references to "democrat" and "republican" are meant to address that forms of government, NOT the political parties.

I have no problem with the elites, The aristochracy or how it spelled. But not in every country the elite means that. Especially not in the Ex-soviet block. These elite came from the communist era, where after the fall of the Soviet union, they could keep their influence and get rich with their connections when the state sold its belongings to them for a laughable price.

To me, the 'elites' I reference to are the educated class. Whenever I refer to 'elitism' it is that class I refer to. I have no respect for those who simply inherited their money.

i am happy i can say i live in a democracy instead of a communist dictatorship. Really i am, but i am not happy with the way of my country goes in the name of democracy.



The economic system of Communism and democracy are not, in principle, incompatible. I prefer a moderately capitalist nation, preferably one educated enough to keep its rulers properly in check without taking any **** from them. Failing that, I'll settle for a benevolent dictatorship that can somehow resist the temptation to take away it's citizens rights.

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." ~Winston Churchill
Americans and Britons, let me be the first to tell you in this forum that what you live in is not, per se, a democracy. Americans live in a presidential republic with a consitution, and the British in a constitutionaly monarchy with a parliament. As I know a great deal about the American system and little of the British, I'll be focusing on the American version of "democracy" being tossed around.

America: Democratically-Elected Presidential Representative Republic with a Constitution.

So, first the root of "democracy" in America-- an intelligent (and in my opinion cowardly) man from Britain named John Locke wrote two Treatises on Government, where he asserted that all men have natural rights to life, liberty, and property that existed before the creation of the State (polis), and that men left the "state of nature" and willingly established the Polis to defend their rights-- particularly their right to property. It is through this that he asserted government got its legitimate power from the people, and that when the government failed to protect these rights, the people had the right to revolt.

John Locke had the greatest influence on American political thought of all political philosophers, and his words are what directly inspired Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Correct, although you should take care to remember that the Declaration itself is not a legal document.

Here Jefferson asserts that men have their rights before the state is created, by saying that we are endowed by our Creator (Locke's "Nature") with these rights and that they are unalienable. Jefferson goes on to say that when the government fails to secure these rights, it may be justly amended or abolished-- thus the Americans declared independence from Britain for the British failure to secure these rights of Americans.

So, after the Revolution, the Founders face the task of establishing a free, liberal democracy that can justly secure all these unalienable Rights. Obviously, to them, the best way to give freedom to all people is to allow all people to have an equal say in politics. However, the Founders feared democracies. They knew that men act on their passions, and that mobs can be fickle and dangerous. They looked to ancient Greece and Rome as warning signs-- one day the Athenian mob called for the death of Socrates, and the next they were erecting statues in his honor. So, needless to say, pure democracy was "out" for the Founding Fathers.

Pure democracy actually was out for the Athenians as well. They still had laws and positions, often based on Solon's, that could not simply be amended.

So then they thought a republic. They look to Rome as an example, and remembered with fear how populist Julius Caesar managed to turn the Roman mob against the corrupt oligarchy that was the Senate, thus eventually paving the way for the death of the Republic and rise of the Empire. No, a Roman-style republic would not do either if all men were not like Cincinnatus or George Washington (who turned down become king of Rome and king of America, respectively).

Furthermore, there is the pesky problem of each of the American colonies claiming to be separate and sovereign states. However, whereas this was the problem with the Articles of Confederation, it became what saved the American Republic from dictatorship.

The Constitution, arguably, is the answer to the question, what is justice? It addresses the natural rights of men and protects them, and has so many separation of powers and checks and balances that it makes it nigh impossible for a dictatorship to arise. The answer to freedom is Federalism. First, power is separated between two governments-- the state government and the federal government. Then, the power in the larger of the two--the federal government--is split into three separate and distinct branches-- the Congress, the President, and the Courts. Furthermore, the power in the most influential of the three branches--Congress--is divided into two houses, both distinct from one another, that makes it difficult for the Congress to take control of the government. This federalist government combines the three archetypes of government-- Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. Monarchy is represented in our executive,  aristocracy in the Senate (special note: not since the beginning of the 20th century), and democracy in the House of Representatives.

I would argue here that the aristocracy is STILL the Senate and House of Representatives. While not legally mandated, running for office requires such mind-boggling amounts of money that it excludes almost anyone. As such, unless you find wealthy donors (who, in turn, are certain to demand something back), the system is effectively still closed and, with the advent of mass-media, arguably more closed than ever before.

Power to dramatically influence national politics is further removed from the People, who do NOT directly elect the U.S. President-- the elect representatives to elect the president for them.

And how often do those representatives vote against the man the people elected? I believe the answer is, effectively, 'never'. As such, the President is for all intents and purposes elected directly.

This is to counter mob rule and passionate whims. And, originally, the U.S. Senate was NOT elected by the People-- it was elected by state legislatures, who were in turn elected by the people. The House of Representatives is, by far, the MOST democratic forum in the USA, because it was originally the only body directly elected by the people. You can tell the Founders feared it, though-- House members only serve for two years before being reelected, meaning they don't have time to sit and do too much.

I wasn't aware of that particular bit regarding the Senate.

Faction, which is the worst threat to freedom and defined as one group of people intending to oppress the rights of another group of people, is stopped in its tracks due to this federalism.
This, I disagree with. In certain cases, federalism may even enhance said oppression, such as the Civil War era.

Given the size and wide-spread needs and wants of Americans living in various places, faction is further stoppered. This is how the separation of powers is maintained. It is further maintained by the ambition of men, which the Founders recognized would stop the people of the branches from giving up their power to any other branch.

A system which, given the incredibly expanded powers of the executive, has clearly failed to live up to these standards.

So, while the U.S. Republic is far from being perfect, it--as the representative of "democracy" that it is--it fulfills its need and protects the fundamental human rights of its citizens (or at least it is supposed to). And, while the 9/11 attacks were a blow to personal freedoms, the fact that we did not surrender all rights of privacy to the government and start nuking other nations is attributed to this Republic that we have established. Had we been a pure democracy on 9/11, the passions of the American mob would have given the executive tenfold of that which the Congress gave him.

The politicians [Expletive Deleted] themselves out either way. As long as American Idol is on, the American people seem blissfully uncaring about their freedoms. They want security from the 'terrists' at all costs, and the politicians couldn't care less what would happen as long as they get reelected.

On a side note: why are the Founding Fathers so revered? While they were obviously great men, they aren't perfect.

the ex soviet block faced the trauma of 1990 their economy is built on a "ghost" one. The soviet union created a market, trade system which only worked because the USSR could control its own market. After the failing, most of the industries many country built on collapsed, and the countries had a serious problem of the loans given by other nations to supply their not efficient, dying economy. So in 1990 the newly formed groverments faced a crisis, they had no money to build their democracy. But the wages had to be paid. So they took another loans, sold their properities, ergo they were undefended from the big and strong multinational influence. So the starting happiness when the people thought democracy will give them the heaven, instead many fallen into unbelievable darkness, had to descend into the lowest part of the society.

of course there are examples of countries which could become a rising star after the USSR collapsed, we cannot deny and we dont want to deny their wonderful achivements.

I would argue here that the aristocracy is STILL the Senate and House of Representatives. While not legally mandated, running for office requires such mind-boggling amounts of money that it excludes almost anyone. As such, unless you find wealthy donors (who, in turn, are certain to demand something back), the system is effectively still closed and, with the advent of mass-media, arguably more closed than ever before.

Perhaps it has turned into that-- again, my rant about the 20th century may be impending. Heh.

But, as I mentioned and as you address later, the Senate originally was elected by the state legislature, because the senate was supposed to be the aristocracy, but not in the European sense. Thomas Jefferson once said that there is a "natural aristocracy among men" based on the skill and integrity of individuals, not their money or their blood. The U.S. Senate was supposed to represent that aristocracy-- it was expected that the state legislators, being able to have more time to sit and deliberate than the People, would elect the most intelligent or most prudent two people to represent their state. The House of Representatives, being directly elected by the people, was supposed to be made up of the "common man" and men of the people. As I mention, the Founders feared this. The House of Representatives is the body that most directly represents the passions of the people, thus its term is only two years. The Senate, however, has six year terms, meaning that the Senators--containing the natural aristocracy of men--were supposed to be able to sit and deliberate things slowly and intentionally, not have to worry about going up for election again practically right after they arrive in Congress. This changed midway through the Progressive Era in the early 20th century, when it was changed so that the people directly elected the Senators.


And how often do those representatives vote against the man the people elected? I believe the answer is, effectively, 'never'. As such, the President is for all intents and purposes elected directly.

No, they never do change their vote, but that option is there. Besides, that isn't what I meant. The fact is, the President is NOT directly elected because it is possible for the president to lose the popular election but still win the White House-- look at the 2000 Election. Bush lost the popular vote, but won the Electoral Vote. This is a safeguard for the States, so that huge states like my home state of California cannot completely dominate elections over the little states like Rhode Island. It is a safeguard against mob rule, to stop someone like Julius Caesar or Adolf Hitler from getting elected if someone popular like that ever arose (no, I don't think Gore is Hitler. I like Mr. Gore). Now, if no president wins the electoral vote, then the popular vote still does not elect the president. It goes to the body that best represents the passions of the people-- the House of Representatives; they elect the president, and the Senate elects the V.P. This has only happened once in American history, however.


This, I disagree with. In certain cases, federalism may even enhance said oppression, such as the Civil War era.
I am going to assume that you are arguing that the Federal Government under Mr. Lincoln was a faction oppressing the rights of the states? If so, wrong. The Federal Government was doing its duty. The rights of a group of people were being oppressed by state governments, meaning that 1.) It was perfectly within the rights of the slaves to revolt, and 2.) The Federal Government had a duty to free the slaves.
The argument was that the states said slaves were property, and that the federal government had no right to infringe their right to property. Lincoln and company informed them that human beings weren't property.


A system which, given the incredibly expanded powers of the executive, has clearly failed to live up to these standards.

This is a product of the 20th Century. Much in our world was not anticipated by the Founders. However, there will come a time when it will stop. The Executive can only get so much power before something in the American people that is still there says "enough. Liberty or Death." To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Those that give up essential liberties for security deserve neither." This is something Americans will come to understand again in the future.
I've decided that rant on the 20th/21st century is approaching.


On a side note: why are the Founding Fathers so revered? While they were obviously great men, they aren't perfect.

No, they aren't perfect, but there is just something about them that leads many to call them the greatest generation to ever live. Never before have so many great minds come together at once. They formed what has become the most stable liberal democracy (republic) in history, and they were the first and only people to establish a government saying that human beings have rights that exist BEFORE the government and that cannot be taken away. Furthermore, they are the only people to have ever said in their official declaration of a new order (the Declaration of Independence) that we actually have a right to overthrow our government if it doesn't do what we created it to do. It's simply remarkable.
And both their hindsight and foresight were unparallelled. These men were expert historians, economists, scientists, and philosophers. They established this complex structure of government that has, for the most part, served its purpose and been free of tyranny. Yes, they could not anticipate some things-- such as the power of the super-wealthy tycoons like Rockefeller, Gould, and Carnegie. But the tools were there for the Progressive movement to rise up as a result of the Rockefeller crowd to limit their vast influence and power.

Alas, they also left us many warnings that in the 20th Century have gone unheeded. One thing people find odd and few people know is that the Founders thought that standing militaries were the greatest threat to freedom. This is why Americans never really kept a full-fledged standing military until after the Second World War, when they ignored the Founders again and began growing more and more entangled in foreign affairs. It used to be that all men in the country had a musket, and that if war came they would prepare to go fight for their country. When the war was over, their muskets would return to their shelves and they'd return to farming. That has, obviously, changed a bit.

So, that is why they are reverred. No, they aren't perfect, and they knew that. Washington and Jefferson both lamented and were torn apart inside for owning slaves. They absolutely hated themselves for it. But it was necessitous at the time. (Slavery is another issue that I'd be happy to address in a different post ).

Some more on the American Founders and how they established a great liberal democracy--

Now, Jefferson and Franklin are my favorite Founders, but here are some things, from a letter a fellowship I belong to sends out, on the greatest of the Founders:


King George Washington?
Do you know of the attempt to make George Washington a King in 1782, and Washington’s
wonderful response? He wrote back to Colonel Lewis Nicola severely reprimanding him for the
“painful sensation” he had caused. Nicola was shamed. The conspiracy ended. If you haven’t
read this letter, the idea of republican government and the virtues necessary to sustain it, will
remain abstract to you. And you will never understand why George Washington was called
great even in his lifetime, and why such a man of a few good words, but of many good
deeds, is rightly called a hero.

A First Welcome
Have you ever read Washington’s 1790 letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, wherein
he welcomed “the children of the stock of Abraham” to the new nation where “everyone shall sit
in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid”? This
wasn’t merely religious toleration, this was real religious freedom. This was the first time in
the history of the human race that a political order welcomed the Jews to practice their
faith.



I like Washington a lot to. He, in turn, loved and respected the great Roman Cincinnatus. Washington was a national hero when he was alive, and even moreso when he died. And when it came down to it, he was the one who made sure America became a new republic and not a new monarchy. Not only did he turn down a crown, but he willingly left office after his second term when he readily could have ruled for life, feeling his work was complete. Most men in history would never have done such a thing.

Perhaps it has turned into that-- again, my rant about the 20th century may be impending. Heh.

But, as I mentioned and as you address later, the Senate originally was elected by the state legislature, because the senate was supposed to be the aristocracy, but not in the European sense. Thomas Jefferson once said that there is a "natural aristocracy among men" based on the skill and integrity of individuals, not their money or their blood. The U.S. Senate was supposed to represent that aristocracy-- it was expected that the state legislators, being able to have more time to sit and deliberate than the People, would elect the most intelligent or most prudent two people to represent their state. The House of Representatives, being directly elected by the people, was supposed to be made up of the "common man" and men of the people. As I mention, the Founders feared this. The House of Representatives is the body that most directly represents the passions of the people, thus its term is only two years. The Senate, however, has six year terms, meaning that the Senators--containing the natural aristocracy of men--were supposed to be able to sit and deliberate things slowly and intentionally, not have to worry about going up for election again practically right after they arrive in Congress. This changed midway through the Progressive Era in the early 20th century, when it was changed so that the people directly elected the Senators.

The intention is irrelevant. It is the results that matter to me, and the results clearly prohibit any but the very wealthiest from running. This does create an aristocracy -and not one of the 'natural' kind, but one of the 'wealthy heirs' kind.

No, they never do change their vote, but that option is there.

An option that is never used, and is in fact unusable is less than worthless.

Besides, that isn't what I meant. The fact is, the President is NOT directly elected because it is possible for the president to lose the popular election but still win the White House-- look at the 2000 Election. Bush lost the popular vote, but won the Electoral Vote. This is a safeguard for the States, so that huge states like my home state of California cannot completely dominate elections over the little states like Rhode Island.

I actually disagree with an electorate form such as that. It makes, frankly, no sense whatsoever. In the founding times it may have been necessary (at the time, Virginia held as many people as the other twelve states combined) but by now, it only shifts around the quanity of votes without affecting the quality of such. The gross shifting of power, where one state can leverage up to six times the power, per person, as another, is frankly horrible.

It is a safeguard against mob rule, to stop someone like Julius Caesar or Adolf Hitler from getting elected if someone popular like that ever arose (no, I don't think Gore is Hitler. I like Mr. Gore).

I could argue the opposite. If someone manages to become popular within the small states, they can theoretically bypass the majority and as such gain power regardless. There is no reason to assume that the smaller states contain more reasonable people than the large ones (Texas notwithstanding ).

Now, if no president wins the electoral vote, then the popular vote still does not elect the president. It goes to the body that best represents the passions of the people-- the House of Representatives; they elect the president, and the Senate elects the V.P. This has only happened once in American history, however.

Adams vs. some other dude, right?

I am going to assume that you are arguing that the Federal Government under Mr. Lincoln was a faction oppressing the rights of the states? If so, wrong. The Federal Government was doing its duty. The rights of a group of people were being oppressed by state governments, meaning that 1.) It was perfectly within the rights of the slaves to revolt, and 2.) The Federal Government had a duty to free the slaves.The argument was that the states said slaves were property, and that the federal government had no right to infringe their right to property. Lincoln and company informed them that human beings weren't property.

You would be wrong in your initial assumption. I am speaking of the continued slavery in the South, pre-Lincoln, despite a clear popular majority. It was an example to show that increased power to the states does not in any sense stop oppression. I would, in fact, argue that in modern America it does the opposite, as can been seen from the (recently repealed) Kansas Evolution debacle or the (also-repealed) Texas Sodomy Laws. Some states are clearly, at some point, not to be trusted with handling their citizens' liberties.

This is a product of the 20th Century. Much in our world was not anticipated by the Founders. However, there will come a time when it will stop. The Executive can only get so much power before something in the American people that is still there says "enough. Liberty or Death."

People didn't say 'stop' when torture was legalized. They didn't say 'stop' when there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. They didn't say 'stop' when the Administration deliberately leaked Plame's identity and thus put her life at risk. What makes you think they will say 'stop' now, or indeed at any point in time? As long as there's another series of American Idols, I see no reason to think this will ever change.

To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Those that give up essential liberties for security deserve neither." This is something Americans will come to understand again in the future.

Optimistic, but for no real reason other than itself.

No, they aren't perfect, but there is just something about them that leads many to call them the greatest generation to ever live. Never before have so many great minds come together at once. They formed what has become the most stable liberal democracy (republic) in history, and they were the first and only people to establish a government saying that human beings have rights that exist BEFORE the government and that cannot be taken away. Furthermore, they are the only people to have ever said in their official declaration of a new order (the Declaration of Independence) that we actually have a right to overthrow our government if it doesn't do what we created it to do. It's simply remarkable.
And both their hindsight and foresight were unparallelled. These men were expert historians, economists, scientists, and philosophers. They established this complex structure of government that has, for the most part, served its purpose and been free of tyranny. Yes, they could not anticipate some things-- such as the power of the super-wealthy tycoons like Rockefeller, Gould, and Carnegie. But the tools were there for the Progressive movement to rise up as a result of the Rockefeller crowd to limit their vast influence and power.

Alas, they also left us many warnings that in the 20th Century have gone unheeded. One thing people find odd and few people know is that the Founders thought that standing militaries were the greatest threat to freedom. This is why Americans never really kept a full-fledged standing military until after the Second World War, when they ignored the Founders again and began growing more and more entangled in foreign affairs. It used to be that all men in the country had a musket, and that if war came they would prepare to go fight for their country. When the war was over, their muskets would return to their shelves and they'd return to farming. That has, obviously, changed a bit.

So, that is why they are reverred. No, they aren't perfect, and they knew that. Washington and Jefferson both lamented and were torn apart inside for owning slaves. They absolutely hated themselves for it. But it was necessitous at the time. (Slavery is another issue that I'd be happy to address in a different post ).



Yes, but that was not truly what I meant. It is more the behavior I've seen from you: throwing Founding Father quotes as though it has the power to instantly settle a debate, no questions asked. As a friend of mine once lamented 'do these people ask the founding fathers for dating advice, too?'.

(Well, Ben Franklin once did write dating advice to a young man, but that's yet another tangent. )

The intention is irrelevant. It is the results that matter to me, and the results clearly prohibit any but the very wealthiest from running. This does create an aristocracy -and not one of the 'natural' kind, but one of the 'wealthy heirs' kind.

It is not irrelevant. It shows how some of the Progressive movement skewered what was otherwise a better form of government, all in the hopes of "more freedom and democracy" for all people, IE: more direct democracy, which history shows us is dangerous. But Woodrow Wislon, one of the stalwarts of the Progressive Era, was an idealist-- he and many Progressives believed that mankind had reached a state where it could no longer be corrupted.

Our loss.


An option that is never used, and is in fact unusable is less than worthless.

Just because it has never been used does not mean it is unusable or worthless. It is intended also to be there if, say, after the election the President Elect is convicted of fraud, corruption, or murder or something like that-- we have some time immediately following the election to check that stuff and not instantly elect him.



I actually disagree with an electorate form such as that. It makes, frankly, no sense whatsoever. In the founding times it may have been necessary (at the time, Virginia held as many people as the other twelve states combined) but by now, it only shifts around the quanity of votes without affecting the quality of such. The gross shifting of power, where one state can leverage up to six times the power, per person, as another, is frankly horrible.

Yes, nowadays many people disagree with it and accuse it of being outdated. It agree that in this modern era it is slightly antiquated. I support a compromise that Colorado was looking at, where people will still vote for Electors, but instead of all the state's electors going to one candidate, the electors will be split by percentages (IE: if Candidate A wins 60 percent of the state's vote, he gets 60% of the electors, not 100%).


I could argue the opposite. If someone manages to become popular within the small states, they can theoretically bypass the majority and as such gain power regardless. There is no reason to assume that the smaller states contain more reasonable people than the large ones (Texas notwithstanding ).

Correct. But the sheer fact that it takes so many of the small states to overpower the big states means that it would be difficult. Plus I'm not saying that it is to stop popularity; we just don't want the mob--being passionate as they are--electing someone like that. A lot of people never realize that Hitler legally became dictator of Germany, and Caesar legally became dictator of Rome. I mean, we'll always have popular people elected-- look at Reagan. He won almost everything! (heh. Sometimes I feel as if I'm for letting Texas become the Lone Star again)

Adams vs. some other dude, right?
Yes, the 1824 Election between John Q. Adams and Andrew Jackson. One of the messiest elections ever.


You would be wrong in your initial assumption. I am speaking of the continued slavery in the South, pre-Lincoln, despite a clear popular majority. It was an example to show that increased power to the states does not in any sense stop oppression. I would, in fact, argue that in modern America it does the opposite, as can been seen from the (recently repealed) Kansas Evolution debacle or the (also-repealed) Texas Sodomy Laws. Some states are clearly, at some point, not to be trusted with handling their citizens' liberties.

There was no clear popular majority in the Southern states, and the country itself was fairly split-- although the more populous North had more people in it, and thus more people saying nay to slavery. But there were many reasons that the Founders and those immediately following them did not end slavery immediately:
1.) They thought that slavery would end naturally. At the Founding, the cotton gin had not been built and slavery was already beginning to die.
2.) To create the country with stability to ensure that Britain could not take it over again, the Union needed to be whole. The South would not have joined the Union if the Constitution outlawed slavery.
3.) If they released all the slaves immediately at once, they feared they would have the same problem Haiti did. Haiti released all their slaves, and the newly-freed slaves used their power to start a race war, butchering every white man on the island. So the Founders were hoping to search for some way to educate them about citizenship and freedom and to prevent race wars.

Now, what the Founders did do was something remarkable-- they set the stage for slavery to end. They set a date to outlaw the slave trade, which was a huge feat. They wanted to do more; some of Jefferson's original drafts of the Declaration were very critical of slavery. But what they did manage to do was say that "all men are created equal," not just "white men" or "freed men," but all men. They set a standard for the Union to reach, one which it didn't reach until the Civil Rights movements of the 20th century-- but one it reached nontheless.

As for the state powers, I like Thomas Jefferson's idea the most. States may do what they want to do in their respective states; up until after the Civil War, no where in the Constitution did it say the states had to follow the Bill of Rights, etc, meaning that states could easily outlaw guns or what-have-you. The Bill of Rights were originally intended to apply only to the Federal government; and the states had the power to do anything that was not clearly expressed as a federal power. Jefferson argued that if you disagreed with some laws in your state, try to vote for people to change them. If the majority liked the laws, move to a different state!

However, in this modern world, given the types of large corporate jobs, this may be slightly antiquated. Heh.


People didn't say 'stop' when torture was legalized. They didn't say 'stop' when there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. They didn't say 'stop' when the Administration deliberately leaked Plame's identity and thus put her life at risk. What makes you think they will say 'stop' now, or indeed at any point in time? As long as there's another series of American Idols, I see no reason to think this will ever change.

Some people did. I will say, yes, the American people have become complacent... Sadly, complacency is the death of freedom. It is connected to a fundamental flaw in our education system. The Founders said that educated people are how the republic can live, and stressed that everyone should be educated in civics and history. This, obviously, isn't happening.
What I mean, however, is that when our own rights become too oppressed, Americans will not stand for it. It is sad that more people are not speaking out against torture or the CIA fiasco, but that is where activism comes in. They did, however, say stop to the Iraq War. The representatives who promised to stop the war, however, have failed and will probably pay the consequences next year if they do not fix their mistake.

Again, this complacency is a curse of the technology of the 20th century and fear of the 21st. More people can name American Idol contestants than they can foreign heads of state.... Sad.


Yes, but that was not truly what I meant. It is more the behavior I've seen from you: throwing Founding Father quotes as though it has the power to instantly settle a debate, no questions asked. As a friend of mine once lamented 'do these people ask the founding fathers for dating advice, too?'.

(Well, Ben Franklin once did write dating advice to a young man, but that's yet another tangent. )

No, they don't instantly settle a debate. In fact, they should cause debate! Heh. However, as I mentioned, their hindsight and foresight was amazing. They were wise men whose ideas and actions really help maintain freedom. Furthermore, they are the people who made it so we could have this freedom that we are naturally given, ridding us of the government that oppressed those rights.

And I'd happily throw out quotes from other statesmen, if you like. I'm partial to Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Fred Douglass, Eisenhower, MLK Jr, and Reagan as well. Reagan actually has some pretty good speeches about natural rights... I like statesmen from other nations do, particularly Churchill, Aristotle, Gandhi, Xenophon, Bismarck, John Locke, Adam Smith, and some others... They all have good arguments. Heh.

But, people go to the Founders for lots of advice. And, yes, Franklin was the most versatile this way. Dating advise, farming advice, weather advice, cooking advice-- he did a lot. Heh.

I'm not sure what I really CAN say - but I know what happened with the CoJ case. It was all a big mistake on the one member's part, and he fessed up to it after the original author complained. As far as I can see he got off easier because of that.

Simple matter is - if you don't like how things are run, it's better to discuss it privately with the people that actually affect those areas than to make a public ass of yourself. Or - you can keep it to yourself. That works. The good thing is - people are talking on the forums.

The DJB doesn't follow any real-world government system. It's a partially democratic, a dab of monarchy, a little communist, and a tad of dictatorship thrown in there.

I am relatively new to the DB but have noticed one thing that touches on the issues being discussed. That is, there is a sort of false politeness that is expected.

By false politeness, I mean that it seems to be the case that persons in power expect a certain respect for their decisions without regard for the merit of those decisions and without regard for how polite the persons in power were in weilding their power. In this way, the DB is more like the military or dictatorial model where rank has its priviledges even when sometimes the emperor has no clothes. Might does indeed make right.

Politeness is expected but not given. In my opinion, unless politeness is mutual, it is a sham.

What makes this confusing for some people is a variety of factors but, foremost among them, a. their own OC cultural mileu (for example, Americans are much more prone to expect to be able to question authority and not necessarily politely) and b. the Covenant seems to suggest more of an egalitarian structure than truly exists.

I am not complaining but I have found that the "Rock's Rules" (an unabashed reference to Professional Wrestling) are in effect throughout most of the DB (and I am not talking about GM Sarin or ex-GM Jac but many intermediate leaders I have encountered). Those are:

1. Know your role.

2. Shut the Hell up.

Many in power here seem to insist on politeness but seem incapable of, or at least unwilling to, be polite. For my part, I will not seek out mud puddles nor will I walk around them.

I'll shut up for now.

I really don't see why we have these issues. We are members of an online club. A community of like minded indivu=iduals who are fans of Star Wars, or perhaps just like the idea of a larger world.

In reguards to Baron's post, I hope that this is not true, though I'm sure that the're are people who have god complexes and the like. What I want to say to you is this. Human. Thats what each and every one of us is. no matter how long you've been in the DB, what rank you are. Heck, how old you are in real life. We are human beings. there really is no reason for animosity between sane individuals. And this is coming from someone who is trained to kill on command. Come on people. Remember why were hhere, remember why we've beenhere for 10 or more years.

Wow. Just...wow. That's officially the last time I post a comment on the newspage that isn't "congrats! great job!".

/me runs off to ACC or something

I really don't see why we have these issues. We are members of an online club. A community of like minded indivu=iduals who are fans of Star Wars, or perhaps just like the idea of a larger world.

In reguards to Baron's post, I hope that this is not true, though I'm sure that the're are people who have god complexes and the like. What I want to say to you is this. Human. Thats what each and every one of us is. no matter how long you've been in the DB, what rank you are. Heck, how old you are in real life. We are human beings. there really is no reason for animosity between sane individuals. And this is coming from someone who is trained to kill on command. Come on people. Remember why were hhere, remember why we've beenhere for 10 or more years.





Well said. Amen. Better put than I could put it. Thanks.

yeah that is so true!

Food for thought: The word Democracy is not contained within any of the US’s founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Articles of the Confederation, US Constitution, Bill of Rights etc.) and I can’t find it until just after world war two, IE the onset of the cold war, when Democracy and Christianity set us apart from the Godless Communism of the Soviet Union. Furthermore our system of Government is less of a direct Democracy and closer to a Republic (Doesn’t Bush make more sense as the American counterpart of the Roman Consul?).

Discuss!

I think I would dispute that. For the US to be closer to being a Republic, the state govts. would have to have more of a say in the running of the federal govt. That may have been the case when the state legislatures elected the senate, but not now.

Food for thought: The word Democracy is not contained within any of the US’s founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Articles of the Confederation, US Constitution, Bill of Rights etc.) and I can’t find it until just after world war two, IE the onset of the cold war, when Democracy and Christianity set us apart from the Godless Communism of the Soviet Union. Furthermore our system of Government is less of a direct Democracy and closer to a Republic (Doesn’t Bush make more sense as the American counterpart of the Roman Consul?).

Discuss!



-refers back to previous posts-


The reason you do not find the word "democracy" in any founding American texts is because the American Founders abhorred "democracy" as a violent, self-destructive form of rule that was the death of all republics it touched. The reason you see it after WWII was, yes, partially in response to communism-- 20th century politicians somehow came to use the words "freedom" and "democracy" interchangeably. However, one reason that it grew in use was because, after WWII, the consequences, good and bad, of the Progressive movement took root in the country as Progressives and Populists dominated American politics up until WWII. And one thing that progressives did was more direct democracy, such as passing an amendment to allow the people to directly elect their federal senators. Prior to WWII, you would hardly see any "ballot iniatives" for Americans to vote on at the polls; it was expected that the people they elected--the people their taxes are paying for--would decide these things in a deliberate manner. After WWII, when Progressive thought dominated and forever changed classical American thought, you saw more and more direct democracy as ballot initiatives filled the polls (even moreso in recent years).

Then enter the real crime of the 20th century and what, I assert, has destroyed America-- WWII. It destroyed America by destroying Europe. It destroyed America because it made America a superpower-- one of two superpowers until the 1990s, but the stronger of the two. And with that came a standing military larger than any in American history (some people will argue that it isn't "standing" because Congress still needs to budget it every two years, but it is, ipso facto, a standing military now). Further enter what Republic President General Dwight Eisenhower, who led Allied troops to victory in Europe, called the "military-industrial complex" that would come to control Congress, which is what the Founding Fathers feared and why they warned against having militaries when we don't need them. "Luckily" for America, the Cold War managed to follow WWII, and we always had someone to fight about every five years.

"But no," some say, "the Cold War ended! Where is this military-industrial complex now?"

Ah, in the 1990s we managed to find a new mess to emerge ourselves in with President Bush Sr.-- The Middle East! After being friendly with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, he lost his uses with the collapse of the Soviet Union and furthermore starting murdering people who gave us oil. Then under Clinton we found the initiative to send troops to the Balkans and Africa, and mess with Iraq a bit more. But it wasn't enough. Americans needed an enemy to fight. With Communism defeated, what was left for great "Democracy" to fight next? The military-industrial complex grew desperate and began drawing up plans for a second invasion of Iraq, when lo and behold a group of vile beasts inflicts massive civilian casualties on the American homeland, and once more the dying military-industrial complex gets rolling as "Democracy" has a new enemy to fight. But this enemy doesn't have a face, doesn't have a capital to spy in, or an army to face. It doesn't have a world-wide international agency to mediate disputes in. No, this threat to Democracy is idealogical. Terror. What is a better thing for the military-industrial complex than an enemy that cannot 'fall' as Communism did? "Democracy" can keep on fighting this ideological terror, which through its very, very real evil (and this I am not kidding about; some of the men we face are truly evil) it manages to be successful in its quest to destroy our liberty thanks to the complacency caused by the 20th century. The military-industrial complex, which we were warned about by a GOP president and the last man of really big military caliber to run the White House, rolls along in a war without borders, without armies, without faces, and without an ending. Yes, we may invade a country that had terrorism in it and bring peace and balane to it, but still there is always more, for "Democracy" is fighting "Terror", and "terror" can be anywhere-- even within our own borders; I remind people that, prior to 9/11, the worst acts of terrorism committed against Americans were by Americans.

And the American people have been poisoned by the 20th century. Human communication has evolved to become somewhat baseless as more people prefer conversations over a board like this rather than face-to-face. Television brings what people want, when they want it right into their living rooms. Ah, but wait! It gets better. Now we have TiVo, so we can even record something off of the 700 channels our satellite gives us. We live in a world now where a child is more far more likely to play video-games with each other (though not in the same house; it's all about x-Box live!) then go out and play soccer or baseball or hang out on a playground. We live in a world where, as ALL surveys have shown, more Americans can name American Idol contestants than foreign leaders, all of whom have an influence on our world and our future. We live in a world where people are more concerned about getting their votes in for their favorite American Idol than they are about getting their votes in for their Commander-in-Chief. Without meaning to draw laughs from the phrase commonly used in jest, things like "American Idol" have made Americans idle much like entertainment was in ancient Rome. "Bread and circuses! Bread and circuses!" The Senate and laters the Emperor realized they could control the mob by feeding them and allowing them to be distracted with entertainment while other men run their lives.

All of this due to the 20th Century. Becoming the sole superpower on the planet was a terrible thing for the United States of America.

I am reminded of a story of ancient Rome. A Syrian army had invaded Egypt, and was conquerig the entire kingdom. The Romans, who did not want the balance in the Mediterranean upset by this, had no legions and no armies whatsoever in Egypt. All they had was a single, old Roman noble of the equestrian class in Alexandria. The Syrians marched towards Alexandria, the last city they needed to conquer. This old Roman met them at the gates to the city and asked to see the Syrian king. Within an hour he had an audience with the king.
"The Senate and the People of Rome demand that you withdraw your armies from Egypt and return home," demanded the old man, leaning on a walking stick.
The king responded that he would think of it and tell the Roman his answer the next day. The old man then took his walking stick and drew a circle in the sand around the Syrian king, and replied, "Sonny, you'll give me an answer before you leave this circle."
The following day, the Syrian army left Egypt.

That power is nice, yes. That power is what America practically had and will continue to have until about ten years from now when China graduates and gets to sit at the big kid's table. In fact, all that the United States needs now is a Carthage. An enemy that keeps peskering us. Carthage and Rome fought for many, many years. The Romans viewed the Carthaginians much like Americans viewed Communists and now the all-so-elusive "terrorists." However, when Carthage hit too close to home (Hannibal's marching of some elephants into Italy, which can be somewhat similar to enemies striking the heart of New York), the Romans said "enough" and demanded that Carthage must be destroyed. And so it was. After years of fighting, the Roman Army sacked Carthage. This time, though, it was not just a sack. The totally burned the entire city to the ground, and it is said that as Scipio Africanus looked into the fires of Carthage, he saw Rome burning. That was the tip of the iceburg. The Roman military complex needed fuel, and thus the republic slowly transformed to empire and the people did not care, fear and entertainment getting the better of them. So, yes, the Roman people enjoyed absolute security and power over their world-- but for it they sacrificed what little freedom they already had.

When the United States of America once more gets hit by terrorists, I fear what will happen. I fear especially if terrorists secure nuclear or biological material, as now it is quite possibly to fit a nuclear bomb into a suitcase and walk it into the middle of a city. I fear how far Americans will go to secure their lives, for Americans, much like the Romans, do not lose morale and run away in fear when they are attacked. They get angry. One terrorist attack spurned the invasion of two countries in the Middle East, the topple of two dictatorships--one which even had nothing to do with the attacks--, and the limiting of civil liberties of Americans and the natural rights of other men (re: Gitmo). If America is hit twice, Americans will either sacrifice their freedoms for their safety or allow the government to crush its enemies like the Romans did to Carthage. Either way, liberty loses.


But, lo and behold, as the dragon of the Far East rises to superpower-status (which it will be by the 2030s), Americans may get an all-knew enemy to face, and this progressively dying republic established 200 years ago that now calls itself "democracy" may get to stand up to the fearsom Communists once more. And we know it, too. We are already setting the board for war with China. We are building air bases in India-- why on earth would we need bases there? Oh! Wait! China is right next door. We're building a missile defense system in eastern Europe. Why would we need that there? Iran? Pfft. They aren't stupid enough to try hit Europe... Hey, but wait... Chinese long range missile can fly towards Europe. What? Nah.... Hey! We're encouraging the Japanese to amend their pacifist constitution and begin a military build-up. What's that? North Korea? Yeah, they have rumored nuclear technology. Too bad their fricken missiles can't even get out of their territorial waters. But, wait... Japan is close to China!

This is how the world works now. The 20th Century killed the American Republic and gave way to the America calling itself a democracy and slightly run by the complacency of its citizens and this elusive military-industrial complex that the Founding Fathers and General Eisenhower said would destroy liberty.

Oh, and despite more democratic tendencies and being called a democracy, there is still proof that we are not a democracy by the sheer fact that we are still engaging in military operations in Iraq despite the majority of Americans opposing it.

/end 20th century rant.


Post Script: To defend some things--- Yes, I supported our invasion of Afghanistan. No, I hate the fact we invaded Iraq. Yes, I think we made a huge mess there. No, I don't believe we can retreat from Iraq until we kill all of the al Qaeda operatives that OUR occupation let into the country. No, I don't think we'll go to war with Iran. I know we aren't going to war with North Korea, and I'm damn certain that any future children I may have will probably be drafted to invade China.
And, no, I do not believe that everything that came out of the 20th century is bad. I do think that most people are using a lot of what we got poorly though.
And I don't hate the military; I almost joined the navy if it weren't for my bad knees. I merely hate the fact that since WWII the military is being put to work constantly.

Democracy, with a capital D... its an unasuming word with a verry big meaning.. from what i can gather, this thread is about the DB and weather it can truly be classed as such. i think that gladly and thankfully the DB cant fall into the class of democracy. look at it this way, does your favourate video game.. halo, cs, FFVII, whatever, stop to ask you " are you ok with this".. the answer is a resounding no..

The db is a comunity on the internet.. and as such needs decision makers.. (all of this is my personal opinion ofcourse so feel free to contradict) so democracy would only bog down the process... think of a corporation and youll be closer to what the db represents.. imagine nasa stoping to ask people at evry turn "does this satalite look ok to you?" or microsoft "should we spend money developing a new OS?"

just my thoughts on the subject. =)

True, we have gotten a little off topic. The DB isn't, and shouldn't be, a democracy. In a true democracy, its one person, one vote. That wouldn't work for an online club. Decisions need to be made, sometimes unpopular ones. And being popular doesn't lead to being a good leader. A demogogue, yes, but not a leader. How many people become members for a little while, don't learn about the group, then let their membership lapse? It would be very destructive to the DB to give people like that an equal say in how the club is run.

In the democracy of Anciant Greece, only Male citisens were allowed to vote (disallowing females, the poor, the uneducated and the forign who were not citisens). I could see descisions being made in the Dark Brotherhood based on a vote if voted on by OT/KP/SW and up.

That's interesting!

True, but what about those who have attained the rank of DJK? They've worked pretty hard to get there too!

Being a DJK I understand it takes hard work to make DJK, however I think that would be much to inclusive.

I think OT/SW/KP is a much more significant and substantial achievement especially given that your not technically a member of your perspective Order until that rank and grade.

That should keep the field to those defiantly knowledgeable about the DJB, they will have generally been around at least a year and it will drastically reduce the voting population, reducing the possibility of someone voting ignorantly.

True... But what about those DJK's who have been around three or four years like myself and a few others??

True... But what about those DJK's who have been around three or four years like myself and a few others??



Get promoted.

As an addition to that, there will never be any real type of "democratic" process in the DB. In certain cases the general membership is polled. In most cases, the DC "votes" on things, with Consuls representing the general membership of their Clans. Outside of that is way too much and nothing would ever get done

Get promoted.



Thats easier said than done...

is it?

I guess so...

As an addition to that, there will never be any real type of "democratic" process in the DB.  In certain cases the general membership is polled.  In most cases, the DC "votes" on things, with Consuls representing the general membership of their Clans.  Outside of that is way too much and nothing would ever get done



Nobody votes when they get the chance anyway. Check out the Polling Center with about 20-40 people participating in each topic. We have an estimated 2600 people that are active, and 1-2% actually votes on anything. That's all the proof you need. Oh they'll bitch whenever and where ever they get the chance, but give them an option to anonymously vote on something and they'll ignore it. More fun to bitch than try to make a difference the proper way apparently.

W-O-W. That was even more long-winded than Goat. But it was a good read.

That really brought things into perspective for me. I'll be honest, I know I'm guilty as charged about the polling issues that Kaine pointed out. Sure, I know for me it'll make me a little irritated over not be able to vote about some things, but with the way things stand now, it doesn't matter much.

I agree that important DB matters should be voted on by active members otherwise they'd never get done. Sure, I may not like the fact that I may not be able to vote, but if it keeps it out of the hands of the "do-nothing" majority and gets things done, I by no means want to hold you guys back.

People, honestly, before calling for voting as a method of decision-making of any type, keep in mind that an overwhelming majority of DB members has no voting rights yet in real life, and there's a good reason for that.