From Trekbbs: Are liberals Anti-Democracy

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2004-02-28 01:41am

An interesting post from someone I've been arguing against regarding Gay marriage:

I only ask this because I see time and time again Liberals saying that issues should not be left up to the people.

The most recent is gay marriage. Liberals believe it is too important an issue to be left up to the American people. They actually support one mayor and one state Supreme Court making the law for the whole country!

I have argued with Liberals on this board that say the public is too dumb to have say in certain controversial issues, and that majority should not rule.

Why are Liberals scared of American voters? Is it because they know most Americans are opposed to their extremist views? Why do Liberals portend to know what is good for everyone? Why do they not support a vote on gay marriage?

So I ask you this, are Liberals against Democracy? Why don't they like putting things to a vote? Why are some things too important to be left to the people that actually populate the country? Do they want a select group of elitists to run things?

I ask the Liberals here, why are you scared of the American people? Why are they ignorant, and you're not?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-28 02:03am

They want the Supreme Court to decide the law because that is the democratically decided-upon process.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-28 02:04am

Rule of LAW, not men.

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2004-02-28 02:10am

Joe wrote:Rule of LAW, not men.

I don't think this would go over well over there.

Since I also made a post about it being morally justifiable to disregard laws that are unjust.

In thier mind talking about the Rule of Law would be hypocritical considering my views on civil disobedience.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-28 02:14am

Suggested response follows:

I only ask this because I see time and time again Liberals saying that issues should not be left up to the people.

Yes, Thomas Jefferson had the same crazy idea, hence the Bill of Rights.

The most recent is gay marriage. Liberals believe it is too important an issue to be left up to the American people. They actually support one mayor and one state Supreme Court making the law for the whole country!

Actually, they support the principle of human rights and human equality.

I have argued with Liberals on this board that say the public is too dumb to have say in certain controversial issues, and that majority should not rule.

Not when human rights are at risk of being reduced or removed, which is why the aforementioned Thomas Jefferson wanted a Bill of Rights.

Why are Liberals scared of American voters? Is it because they know most Americans are opposed to their extremist views? Why do Liberals portend to know what is good for everyone? Why do they not support a vote on gay marriage?

Why do we not routinely vote on repealing other parts of the Constitution which annoy the voters? During the 1950s, the American voters would have probably voted to have Jews and blacks specifically excluded from the rights afforded to them in the Constitution.

So I ask you this, are Liberals against Democracy? Why don't they like putting things to a vote? Why are some things too important to be left to the people that actually populate the country? Do they want a select group of elitists to run things?

Too many of them are idiots like you. For the third time, that's why Thomas Jefferson had the foresight to demand a Bill of Rights which could not be trampled upon by the tyranny of the majority.

I ask the Liberals here, why are you scared of the American people? Why are they ignorant, and you're not?

Because they cannot provide a single logical reason to deny gay marriage. Instead, they can only appeal to the thundering hooves of their herd mentality ... just as you did now.

Here's a couple of quotes for you:

"Many people think that virtue consists of severity towards others." - Alphonse Karr, 1925.
"The quality of legislation passed to deal with a problem is inversely proportional to the volume of media clamour that brought it on." - G. Ray Funkhouser.
"Organised hatred, that is unity." - John Jay Chapman, 1898
"People seem to enjoy things more when they know a lot of other people have been left out on the pleasure." - Russell Baker, 1967.

Pay particular attention to the last one. It seems to me that you think marriage will be a better institution if you kick the "undesirables" out of it.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-02-28 05:15am

Besides, isn't democracy an overrated system?

Think about it - modern democracy is built upon the assumptions that the majority always is right (it isn't) and that the government's composition should be decided by even those with little or no knowledge of the way society works. Because of its very nature, democracy also has a tendency to not reward the most intelligent politicians but the one who are best at convincing the public.

And before anyone starts accusing me of anything, I now make it clear that all I did was to criticize democracy - at no point have I advocated dictatorship, since that system allows for even bigger abuses of power.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-02-28 06:04am

Peregrin Toker wrote:Besides, isn't democracy an overrated system?

Think about it - modern democracy is built upon the assumptions that the majority always is right (it isn't) and that the government's composition should be decided by even those with little or no knowledge of the way society works. Because of its very nature, democracy also has a tendency to not reward the most intelligent politicians but the one who are best at convincing the public.

And before anyone starts accusing me of anything, I now make it clear that all I did was to criticize democracy - at no point have I advocated dictatorship, since that system allows for even bigger abuses of power.

Our "democracy" is more like a lobby-cracy, where decisions are made by how much lobbyists can influence the decision makers. It's not the rule of the people, but a rule of those who have the biggst stick to swing and fling money around.
Mixed with this is the increased run towards the high courts, at least here in Germany, where the politicians are told wether their laws will stand or have to be changed.
So they tend to make "fast" laws just to have passed a law (shows "We're doing Something" to the electorate), only to have it changed by the courts...

The only nation I know which is really democratic is Switzerland. Even their government (read ministers) is elected regularly...

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2004-02-28 06:25am

I can see this person going from 0 to hypocritical in .2 seconds if you said "So, if 50%+1 of the population are in favor of banning handguns..."

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-02-28 07:49pm

This attitude on "the will of the people" is indeed hypocritical. People from both left and right have said "the people aren't smart enough to decide" when an issue they support goes against public opinion, but turn around and say the opposite when public opinion does favor the issue they support.
I'm not saying I disagree with you, Wong: the rights of the minority must be protected by law.
I just thought I'd point out how rapidly the opinion of some individuals on if "the people should decide" seems to change based on public support for their cause.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-02-28 08:12pm

To be honest, a pure democracy is the worst possible system to live under. That's why you'll be hard pressed to find one, to work you do need protections for the minority enshrined in law.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-02-28 08:15pm

It maybe Taboo to say so but democracy in the "mob rule" style is a bad thing, the mob is not always right and must be tempered by those who aren't moronic, reactionary or bigoted. The problem is if you have a system of elites you end up with the power mad, out of touch and privately owned running the show.

Western Democracy isn't a good system it is just the best compromise available because unfortunately the benevolent dictator doesn't exist. I would argue that I think British Parliamentary democracy does a better job of finding the correct balance between the mob and those in power but I am sure there are many Americans who would disagree.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-28 09:07pm

The problem with democracy is the voters. Too many of them are imbeciles.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-02-28 09:31pm

Winston Churchill once said something along the lines of of "There is nothing that will shake one's faith in democracy like talking to an average voter."

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-02-28 09:32pm

Everyone loves democracy so long as the majority agrees with them.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-02-29 05:13am

Andrew J. wrote:Winston Churchill once said something along the lines of of "There is nothing that will shake one's faith in democracy like talking to an average voter."

He IIRC also said:

"Democracy is awful. The only reason we use it is that all the alternatives are worse."

Darth Wong wrote:The problem with democracy is the voters. Too many of them are imbeciles.

What about a modified form of democracy where voting rights as well as the ability to hold office are restricted to those with an IQ above average, or a high education? (a bit like Plato's Republic, actually)

This could seemingly solve the problem of imbecilic voters.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-02-29 05:16am

Peregrin Toker wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The problem with democracy is the voters. Too many of them are imbeciles.
What about a modified form of democracy where voting rights as well as the ability to hold office are restricted to those with an IQ above average, or a high education? (a bit like Plato's Republic, actually)

This could seemingly solve the problem of imbecilic voters.

*cough*Jim Crow*cough* Literacy tests, anyone?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-29 05:31am

Why not simply put skill-testing questions on the ballot? Any adult who can't (for example) figure out what two quarters and a nickel add up to should be shot, never mind being allowed to vote.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2004-02-29 06:16am

Darth Wong wrote:Why not simply put skill-testing questions on the ballot? Any adult who can't (for example) figure out what two quarters and a nickel add up to should be shot, never mind being allowed to vote.

Gawd, are there really people that stupid?

Rogue 9 wrote:*cough*Jim Crow*cough* Literacy tests, anyone?

Interesting... you imply that restricting voting rights to the most intelligent would lead to Jim Crow-esque discrimination. What does this say about your own prejudices?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-29 09:26am

Rogue 9 wrote: *cough*Jim Crow*cough* Literacy tests, anyone?

Our history with poorly regulated and race-biased literacy test, does not mean that we would be unable to devise a fair system of literacy tests.

That said, I'm not in favor of the idea for the following reasons:

1) It creates even less incentive to vote and judging by the current rate of voter turnout, this is something we really don't need.

2) It would create a futher psychological barrier between the upper class and the (typically less educated) working class.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2004-02-29 10:59am

Peregrin Toker wrote: Gawd, are there really people that stupid?

Are you kidding? Plenty of people graduate from high school without the ability to read anything more complicated than a stop sign. Nevermind the drop-outs.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-02-29 11:25am

Darth Wong wrote:Why not simply put skill-testing questions on the ballot? Any adult who can't (for example) figure out what two quarters and a nickel add up to should be shot, never mind being allowed to vote.

While that would greatly help clean up the gene pool, what about questions about current issues and where the candidates stand? After all, that at least gets rid of slobs would have no idea what their voting for.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-02-29 01:21pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:To be honest, a pure democracy is the worst possible system to live under. That's why you'll be hard pressed to find one, to work you do need protections for the minority enshrined in law.

I don't think a pure democracy is possible for more than the shortest length of time, because in the absence of a safety net someone with great charisma, wealth, or some other advantage will be able to influence the mob into securing dictatorial control for him.

And I don't think any intelligent person will argue that the mob is anything but an undesirable element of democracy, against which all possible effort should be directed.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-02-29 02:02pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote: I don't think a pure democracy is possible for more than the shortest length of time, because in the absence of a safety net someone with great charisma, wealth, or some other advantage will be able to influence the mob into securing dictatorial control for him.

You dont even have to look too far to see how such happens...a little earlier in the century a certain Time Magazine Man of the Year did just that sort of thing...

And I don't think any intelligent person will argue that the mob is anything but an undesirable element of democracy, against which all possible effort should be directed.

Indeed, some of the time though you are unfortunately hard pressed to find the intelligent people...

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-02-29 02:42pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:I don't think a pure democracy is possible for more than the shortest length of time, because in the absence of a safety net someone with great charisma, wealth, or some other advantage will be able to influence the mob into securing dictatorial control for him.

The Greek meaning for "tyrant" was exactly that.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-02-29 02:52pm

Darth Wong wrote:The problem with democracy is the voters. Too many of them are imbeciles.

I think voters really aren't that big a problem. They're only needed to vote. After they voted, they almost loose all influence until the next election.
From my point of view, pressure groups and lobbyists are by far worse. They aren't elected, yet have ultimately more influence on political decisions than the voters.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

From Trekbbs: Are liberals Anti-Democracy

From Trekbbs: Are liberals Anti-Democracy

Re: From Trekbbs: Are liberals Anti-Democracy