Forum Post: "Democracy passes into despotism." - Plato
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 21, 2011, 12:20 a.m. EST by Rooster8
(49)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
DEMOCRACY IS A TRAP. America is NOT a democracy . It was never intended to be, we are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC or better yet, a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. Many of these protesters are supporting democracy, but I’m afraid that many do not understand the false securities of democracy, that democracy can lead them back on the path of dictatorship or authoritative rule. Over two hundred years ago, a Scottish professor, Alexander Tyler, put it well, “democracy will continue to exist up into the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public’s treasury.” This has been true for countless democracies. However, millions of us know we have endangered ourselves, by not understanding the dangers of democracy. Alexander Tyler's (Scottish Historian) “Cycle of Democracy”:
“From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependency back again into bondage."
Many of our Founders understood this theory. So they thought of a way to possibly break this cycle, thus creating a Republic, where the States are in charge of the Federal Government – Articles of Confederation (1777). Unfortunately, with the threat of war with France, a new Constitution was created from the Constitutional Convention of 1787, but was fought against by those who wanted a bill of rights to protect the rights of the individuals and the principles of the republic, these people were called Anti-federalists (Jefferson, P.Henry, Mason). So when the Bill of Rights (first ten Amendments of the Constitution – that protects individual’s inalienable rights and the Republic (9th and 10th Amed.) was implemented (Madison), all states signed on in 1791. Our current U.S. Constitution (set up rules of our federal government), combined with the Bill of Rights (required by our states in order for the Constitution to be valid.) is a democratically-elected system, in which the people elect representatives from each region, that have equal power. this ensures that farmers in rural areas (less populated) have the equal say as the heavily, more-populated cities. Our Constitution divides the powers into three separate branches, so NOT to have a king or dictator. A system to unite the states when threatened by foreign enemies. A system that would ensure greater power and sovereignty to the states, with no state more powerful than another.
So, I think it is about time to give our Founding Fathers their due credit for having the forethought in recognizing the failures of democracy and for creating our democratic republic form of government, that has kept us together and prosperous. So World, the choice is yours -a republic form of government or a democracy of sorts, eventually resulting in tyranny?
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”- Ben Franklin
You're really nit-picking irrelevantly. When we speak of returning democracy to the people, we merely mean we want our democractically elected leaders to bend to the will of the people, rather than to their wealthy benefactors, thus, indeed, returning us to the intended state of our constitutional republic, as opposed to the status quo, in which corporate lobbyists have drowned out the voice of the people with their bribery (i.e., we now have fascism, or corporate control, rather than "democracy", or control via the will of the people). Our "constitutional republic" was always intended to function democractically, in that it was to be a government "of/by/for the people", in which, as you indicate, all citizens have an equal voice.
....by not understanding the dangers of democracy. Alexander Tyler's (Scottish Historian) “Cycle of Democracy”:
“From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependency back again into bondage."
From what I can tell, the America people are somewhere in "apathy to dependence...back again into bondage". We need to step out of this cycle.
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”- Ben Franklin
.
Hello Keepitsimple, "Apathy to dependence...back again into bondage". I agree (fear) that this might be where we are at.
Tony, I like your spirit and I understand our current dilemma that we Americans are in. We've been getting screwed for so long, we should feel like a pin cushion. I've been a libertarian for years and have watched both Republicans and Democrats sign our freedoms away while most of America were busy jerking off to American Idol. If they gave half a crap, then maybe we wouldn't be in this mess now! But here we are. Here's my what I think - You say you want our leaders to do the people's will. There are 600 million Americans, and a few thousand people are the people's will? But staying on the people's will - What if the will of the people is to destroy a businesses (businesses are private property) without due process of the law? I bet if many of these banks and corporations had their day in court, we would find they did things that were legal (*President Obama said the banks had to take the bailouts, though many didn't want to - this was to hide which banks were paying the corrupt leaders.). Maybe their actions were illegal once before, but under the current laws, they are legal now. There in lies the problem - the people who make/change the laws - the government.
Example: Remember the housing crash - well back in the Nineties, the government changed the laws that once prohibited banks from giving sub-prime loans (loan sharking), and in fact forced banks to give these loans to people who could not afford it. Then groups like ACORN (Pres. Obama worked for at the time) would go to poor people, often time minorities, and tell them that they can now own their own house. If the banks would refuse to give out sub-prime loans, ACORN would scream racism and the government would put pressure on the banks. The banks would cave in, ACORN gets paid and walks away. They were creating chaos for the future. How did Rahm Emanuel put it, "You never want a crisis to go to waste.". How do we change things - Well, there will always be businessmen and women who will want to pay a politicians to change/make a law and there will always be corruptible politicians - So we must elect those people who are incorruptible - libertarians are very principled in freedom and less government, just saying. Here's some things the "media" doesn't want to tell you:
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJY2PCy6FgI&feature=player_embedded#!
* http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/
Arming the Mexican Drug Cartels http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIvTP_cfBOg Kudos to CBS
"...it ought to heighten our skepticism that these "green" policies are really crafted with an eye to helping the environment -- they are more likely skewed toward the bottom line of lobbied-up Big Business."
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/03/meet-lobbyist-who-turns-green-greenbacks#ixzz1eOG6UIGq
The govt. changed the rules for banks, because banks lobbied (paid off, bribed, whatever you want to call it) the govt. (or, more precisely, our elected leaders, since the government is a system which can't be bribed, but the people working in it, yes, can be).
That IS the problem, of course, that corporations have too much influence over our government, and that our elected leaders allow it (because, duh, they profit from it). I don't see how you could miss that point. You want to blame the government without demanding that corporations be prohibited from influencing it. Follow the money. It's coming from the corporations. Less government isn't the solution. If you dismantle regulatory commissions and rescind labor protections and environmental protections, etc., the corporations will only have more power to become huge conglomerate monopolies, exploit and abuse labor, and destroy the environment with impunity. The premise is preposterous. This is the biggest reason that Ron Lawl is laughable. When corporations have TOO MUCh power and influence over the government, dismantling the laws and regulatory commissions that are supposed to regulate them is not the solution.
Yes. I know those commissions are corrupted, and many of them are peopled with corporate toadies, who only enforce regulations that shackle their masters' smaller competitors, thus increasing their monopolistic power, while weakening any real regulations meant to protect laborers and the environment. But the solution isn't to dismantle these commissions and protections, but to reform them. Prohibit corporate lobbyists and former corporate employees from working in these commissions. When an industry is allowed to police itself, it doesn't. These regulatory commissions must be manned by people who will work for the people, to protect labor and the environment. Monopolies must be dismantled, not regulatory commissions
Also, the movement that calls itself "libertarian" here in the US is anything but. True libertarianism arose out of anarcho-communism, not corporate fascism, but the current American "libertarian" movement only seeks to "liberate" corporations, thus allowing them to further enslave American laborers and destroy the environment.
If you want a party that doesn't take corporate bribes, will work for the well-being of the people, and protect the environment, in my opinion, you should look into the Green Party. By international standards, they're a fairly moderate party, but the fact that they don't take corporate bribes really makes them stand out in the US, imho.
Tony, Do you support the Patriot Act or the largest dept - Home land Security? More government, means taking away your rights. The green movement is nothing more than an communist/socialist movement; instead of give your rights for the good of society, it's for the good of the environment. The main pushers of this are our global elites. UN Earth Charter is to control consumerism and population, but first they need America to collapse to suspend the US Constitution. UN Agenda 21 is in fact global communism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us8Yv4YLz9k&feature=related
++ "The Doctrine of Fascism", Mussolini wrote "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." By 1938 dictator Benito Mussolini brought his vision of fascism to fruition in Italy, he dissolved the Parliament and replaced it with "Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni" or "the Chamber of Fascist Corporations".
I know that communism and fascism government will pick the which companies will win and which will lose, but it's gonna cost them - that's corruption. I prefer the free market deciding winners and losers, rather than government. I'm a classical liberal.
Oh yeah, everything is a communist/socialist plot to kill Grandma and take our guns and stuff to you "libertarian" conspiracy whackadoodles. I forgot.
There's absolutely nothing in the Green Party platform that is contrary to the US Constitution.
And, no, I do not support the Patriot Act. Almost no American, to my knowledge, does. I don't know a single person, in fact, who does. In fact, on this I will agree with you: the "Patriot" Act IS unconstitutional.
Men of great power do conspire, they have a plan, You might think the imminent collapse of the world economy is an accident. I do not.
"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals"
President Obama recommends Sal Alinsky's book "Rules For Radicals" for all colleges and high schools, and Hillary Clinton did her thesis on this book. Great Read. I'm sure many organizers here know it well. The Bushes, the Clintons, Obama and many other neo-artistocrats have America's future all planned out. Global communism, under the guise of the global government, is their goal. Deny if you will. You can take a horse to water....
Obama and Clinton are far to deep in the sack with the corporate fascists to be anything remotely akin to communist (these two philosophies are diametrically opposed), regardless of whatever their views may have been in college. Nice try. It is, at least, heartwarming to see how well you've mastered copy/paste.
Tony, Communism is when the government owns and controls everything, and corporate fascism is when the government controls everything but doesn't own everything. Both pick and chose the winners and believe in giving up the people's rights for the good of the collective (for communists it's society, and for fascists it's national); they both end with two classes of people, the rich and the poor. Communism and fascism talk a good game about the building of the middle class, but there is no middle class in either, only in theory). In communism the government is the rich, the people are equally poor (but at least their equal), and in fascism the rich are the government and the corporations that the government picks by destroying their competition, thus leaving them with a monopoly. So communism is not a good alternative for fascism because they are essentially the same - oppressive.
As for Obama and Hillary: http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
Hilliary's political science thesis (1969, Wollosley College): http://nukegingrich.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/hillaryclintonthesis.pdf
Plato was an asshole.
His vision of an utopia was basically the ruling class ruling over their workers.
Then to top it off he came up with his allegory of the cave to prove to everyone that he was superior to them.
He was kind of like the hipsters you see nowadays.
"Entire ignorance is not so terrible or extreme an evil, and is far from being the greatest of all; too much cleverness and too much learning, accompanied with ill bringing-up, are far more fatal." Plato
Does this sound like an elitist-asshole?
This movement was created by elitist asshole, the collapse of the US economy will bring in the endgame. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us8Yv4YLz9k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LvwzanCLCo "Know Your Enemy"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fOkx-k8a5c JFK WARNS US!!!!!
the actual form of government we have is corporate oligarchy. Every last bit of your BS propaganda trilling is in essence the dead wrong BS of zombot right wing programming. "the failures of democracy"? democracy has never been implemented, so it can't have failed. Republics by definition are a form of oligarchy and tyranny. the real choice is between some kind of oligarchy- control of the few- and genuine democracy- equality for everyone. In short you are ignorant and blibbering standard programmed zombot nonsense, all of which is completely detached from reality as found in any real world political science textbook.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPR3GlpQQJA
I have been active here since the very beginning, and since the very beginning I have been trying to make some core points. These points clearly have not been digested or fully understood by the mob, and so I'm going to try to make a further attempt here again.
For these reasons, I beg of you to please immediately join me on the wiki. We need to have all of these details and all of these ideas put together in an organized fashion, rather than posted in a long scrawl which will never be read.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ
http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/
Good idea. I had created forums (phpbb), a wiki (doku) and microblogging (statusnet) at http://www.free-haven.org for my local occupiers, but they were all too busy playing on (corporate owned) facebook to make much use of them. I've since opened them up for broader use, but they don't see much traffic, really. But I though, from the beginning, that a wiki was a good idea.
well, yeah. exactly the problem i face also. locally, i have had two different GAs erupt into petty bickering when i told people FB was the problem. They are trying to organize it via FB and fail to see the issues there.
At some point in time critical mass must be achieved and then it will shift from protests to actual work. Until then, its just a waste of time for anybody whos actually already doing real work.
In short, all they are doing is amping themselves up to do the work by avoiding the work. protesting is the most extravagant form of procrastination EVER.
I signed up on your wiki.
thank you! now post a few pages of your ideas and move in and make yourself at home?
I made a few minor edits, so far.
you label this with plato and one little blip about him to give authority to the post but it has nothing to do with plato.
Richard, How does democracy pass into despotism? What did Plato mean by this, if not how Tyler explains it in his "cycle of democracy" ?
you miss the point entirely. the lead in of plato is only given to add credibility to the thread but has nothing to do with the remaining statement.
It's in Plato's Republic.
yeah, and is mentioned in other works all stemming from socates. he has less acknowledged works that contradict the position as well.
Socrates suggests in The Republic that the ideal republic could be created in the state of government called Democracy. I think republics in Socratic terms, are about creating just systems, whether democratic or not.
it's amazing how they managed to grapple purely with the concept and logic. Their view was almost mathematical in that they felt the need to find holes in the logic and fix them before moving forward.
I think the main idea with the Platonic dialogues is to get people to use their minds. Take the Timeaus dialogue for example, Timeaus states at the beginning of the dialogue he is going to speculate on the composition of the universe and that he should be excused for going further than he could ever actually prove. The funny thing is, looking at that dialogue now, over 2000 years later, he wasn't that far off from what we have discovered to be true scientifically.
Socrates wasn't about getting it 100% correct, he was about getting people thinking in a way so they could carry on a tradition of concentrated reasoning.
Rooster8, while I appreciate and laude you for your bravery and clarity of thought, you have slightly missed a key point: our system of government is not at all democratic. If it makes you feel better to call it a democratic republic, then by all means do so. But the American government is purely a republic by definition. @tonybaldwin, This is hardly irrelevant nit-picking and to label it thusly reveals gross lack of knowledge of the importance of the matter at hand. While I agree that from the constitution we the people are the root base of the power of government, the conclusion I draw leans more towards the generation of PRACTICAL solutions to the problems we face. From analysis of the Declaration of Occupation, It is clear that the New York City General Assembly supports direct democracy. Not only is direct democracy impractical in large scale socio-economic settings, it cannot be the most fair, individual-right-protecting system available to mankind. The reason the founding fathers instituted a republic and not a democracy lies in this key point. After all, it is not for similarities between systems that contention arises but in differences. They chose a constitutional Republic because it was the most logically applicable system in which individuals may be protected. Direct democracy is functions inversely to a republic [a basic education in governmental systems will clarify this] and therefore, instituting direct democracy cannot lead to republic based government. Really people, a little educative literacy in government could'nt hurt! The main weakness of direct democracy lies in knowledge. After all there are basic reasons for why Plato also stated that "A good decision is based off of knowledge, and not numbers." Meaning that just because the majority thinks an issue ought to be decided one way doesn't necessarily mean that it is the best decision, even for the majority. The only way to make a good decision on ANY matter is to know as much about the matter and the affects of a given decision. This practical truth seems to have largely been forgotten in modern culture. I would encourage all those associated with the Occupy Movement to carefully assess what they are advocating; frankly, a little education could'nt hurt either.
@gawdoftruth, if America is an oligarchy, what then is the reason it is? I must agree with Mr Franklin. We were given a republic, the question is: have we kept it? if you are right, then clearly we are not. I saw no appeal to reason in your comment; in fact I saw appeal to emotion, with uses of strongly emotional phrases and terms such as 'zombot', and 'right wing programming.' OHHH PLEASSSE [kk, thats emotional response] but really, mental progamming stinks strongly of conspiracy theory. YES, democracy has never been implemented here. From the stand point of clear thinking, the reaction to recognition of this fact ought to be "why wasn't it implemented;" Immediately jumping to the conclusion that we should do it just because it hasn't previously done shows the precise sort of lack of knowledge that Plato referred to when he said that good decisions are based in knowledge. However you made a really, really good point in stating that protesting cannot in and of itself generate positive change. For something to actually happen, it will be up to the people to focus on generating practical and applicable solutions that actually fulfill a representation of the people. To those of that understand how systems are classified, you will find this sounds remarkably like a republic, not a democracy.
-I advocate productive change, and not change for the sake of change; Therefore I think.
A Thinker, I like the way you think As for America being a republic by definition only. I agree. I didn't want to get too deep on this, but I think you'll get it-
A republic is system of how to balance the powers of the people and the powers of the State. Protecting the individual's rights deals with the role of our all American governments (what governments can not do). Both, our system and role, are centered around the spirit of protecting the smallest minority. In the case of the our republic, the smallest state has equal power with all other states (in the Senate before the 17th Amendment), while Congress belonged to the people.
I think Madison clearly states the Framers intentions in Federalist Paper #39: "....The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is national, not federal. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress."
----However, the 17th Amendment altered this structure, taking away the Senate from the states and giving to the people (direct democracy or "national" as Madison put it), thus taking the one major structure of the republic form of government ("federal" as Madison put it). So we are technically not a republic because of the 17th Amendment (like you said), only in the courts (9th and 10th Amendments) does the principles of the republic lives, barely. So the states have no representation in Washington, and therefore no oversight, as prescribed in the Constitution.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa39.htm
a powerful song to the president http://macke.bandcamp.com/track/mr-president-prod-by-g-i-f-t
Thank you Rooster8 for stating what we should all know. Our Constitutions Republic should be the platform for OWS.
Very, very important!!!
Egalitarian reforms are enacted for the purpose of consolidating power, not redistributing power. When Peisistratus bestowed the first democratic rights on the people of the Attic countryside, it was a power play designed to gain supremacy over the oligarchy that lived in Athens. The same can be said of our founding fathers. The Jeffersonian conception of democracy was a palliative for the restive fervor of the lower classes. Each man, through hard work and determination, was able to carve out a little plot of liberty for themselves. However, the reality was that of a class society in which it was nearly impossible to escape the position into which one was born, and it was naturally assumed that real wealth and power would remain in the hands of a particular class. Let's not forget that the same men who wrote about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, were reconciled to owning slaves, and that, "liberty," was equated with, "property." The only exception was John Adams who believed in equal treatment before the law for everyone regardless of class or position.
The Constitution is a cleverly crafted instrument of control created to insure that power remained in the hands of a certain segment of society. What appears on the surface as safeguards for our liberty are manacles shackling our freedom more securely than any totalitarian regime. We act as if our founding fathers' motives were pristine and infallible when they were acting with the same self-interest at heart as today's investment bankers and insurance companies.
I Agree!
Democracy is the politically polite term for Mob Rule!
We should be focusing on individual rights not the abstract concept of a group. Collectivism is our enemy!
[Removed]