Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,607 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Hubris begets Nemesis
Joined
·
7,751 Posts
There is a uneasy balancing act between a tyranny of the many vs a tyranny of the few (or the one).

So there should always be an evenly matched struggle between the two, where neither gains too much of an advantage.

This is why we have an electoral college, a house of representatives, a senate, and an executive.
 

·
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Joined
·
9,695 Posts
There is a uneasy balancing act between a tyranny of the many vs a tyranny of the few (or the one).

So there should always be an evenly matched struggle between the two, where neither gains too much of an advantage.

This is why we have an electoral college, a house of representatives, a senate, and an executive.
unfortunately all of these have been infiltrated by those that would see the downfall of The United States, which means that we no longer have a true democracy, only the illusion of one.
 

·
Hubris begets Nemesis
Joined
·
7,751 Posts
unfortunately all of these have been infiltrated by those that would see the downfall of The United States, which means that we no longer have a true democracy, only the illusion of one.
I agree that we've run the ship way off course. But we were never intended to be a true democracy. The Founding Fathers looked very carefully at ancient Athens as the model for pure democracy and saw that many problems occurred, most importantly the disastrous invasion of Sicily.

They wanted to give the Demos (the people) some real political power, because it was to be a "government by the people and for the people" but not exclusively. And while recognizing that the best rulers are those trained to rule, ie, the ruling class, they had just thrown off the tyranny of a monarch so they were in no mood to go there either.

So they struck a balance, a realistic compromise of power and competing interests, and created the Federalist system.

Not perfect, but pretty damn great.

Now if we can only hold onto it......
 

·
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Joined
·
9,695 Posts
I agree that we've run the ship way off course. But we were never intended to be a true democracy. The Founding Fathers looked very carefully at ancient Athens as the model for pure democracy and saw that many problems occurred, most importantly the disastrous invasion of Sicily.

They wanted to give the Demos (the people) some real political power, because it was to be a "government by the people and for the people" but not exclusively. And while recognizing that the best rulers are those trained to rule, ie, the ruling class, they had just thrown off the tyranny of a monarch so they were in no mood to go there either.

So they struck a balance, a realistic compromise of power and competing interests, and created the Federalist system.

Not perfect, but pretty damn great.

Now if we can only hold onto it
......
I'll second that. Thanks for the reply friend. :thumb:
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlgoRhythms

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,545 Posts
which means that we no longer have a true democracy, only the illusion of one.
We never had a "true democracy". And that's a good thing. Democratic republic is the answer.

That is, as long as you haven't got professional politicians acting in THEIR interest, rather than the interest of those they represent.

Which is what the party system has created, a class of people that are more interested in amassing power and money than in representing their constituents. Working to get re-elected, rather than doing the right things for the people. Completely NOT what was intended.

The Founders NEVER thought that those that would represent the people would not go home and live under the laws they passed, among the people they had screwed over.

Also, pretty sure they were good with the idea that if you did screw the people over, you would suffer the wrath of those people.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,384 Posts
I agree that we've run the ship way off course. But we were never intended to be a true democracy. The Founding Fathers looked very carefully at ancient Athens as the model for pure democracy and saw that many problems occurred, most importantly the disastrous invasion of Sicily.

They wanted to give the Demos (the people) some real political power, because it was to be a "government by the people and for the people" but not exclusively. And while recognizing that the best rulers are those trained to rule, ie, the ruling class, they had just thrown off the tyranny of a monarch so they were in no mood to go there either.

So they struck a balance, a realistic compromise of power and competing interests, and created the Federalist system.

Not perfect, but pretty damn great.

Now if we can only hold onto it......
Well said.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,871 Posts
There is a uneasy balancing act between a tyranny of the many vs a tyranny of the few (or the one).

So there should always be an evenly matched struggle between the two, where neither gains too much of an advantage.

This is why we have an electoral college, a house of representatives, a senate, and an executive.
...and Judicial. They can be a rather important check on tyranny.
 

·
Hubris begets Nemesis
Joined
·
7,751 Posts
...and Judicial. They can be a rather important check on tyranny.

Yes and no. The parts I mentioned are political, some for the "many" and some for the "few".

The Judicial is supposed to be outside of that natural conflict and render an opinion impartially, without favoring any one side or the other. Their ruling becomes the final interpretation of the law.

Of course we've strayed from that.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top