If Democracy Is The Basis For Morally Legitimate Government...

[eniwetok]

If democracy is the basis for morally legitimate government... then where should a citizen's loyalties be? With that principle or a political party that may have strayed from that principle?

[el_bryanto]

1. That is a very tricky question to answer

I guess my answer would be that democracy is a system for making decisions within a framework of justice and freedom and sound government. But once the system is used outside of that framework it becomes destructive. So voting a reprehensible person as President as we have done several times now (and really badly in this last election) is very bad, but still within that framework. Voting to, say, make Trump President for Life or to take away the vote from women or something along those line would be outside of that framework and make the whole system kaput until it is rectified.

But where you place the line that divides disagreement within the system and destruction of the system; that's hard for me to define precisely.

Bryant

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

In the absence of an informed citizenry, the rule of law, and minority rights it is susceptible to the worst kinds of abuse.

[eniwetok]

4. sheep and wolves: that's the right wing meme

It comes as somewhat of a shock that a nation built on the premise that

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


has such a difficult time discussing just what morally legitimate government is by the above standard. I suspect the principle was compromised away in both the Articles and the Constitution... and the latter has become the new principle even if it's no longer a government based on the consent of the governed. The Bush and Trump Juntas prove that... but it's inherent in any aspect of our system where state suffrage is exerted.

Since the GOP has come to be the party dedicated to protecting the uber wealthy, one would never expect them to want to advance democracy. But it's odd that the Dems don't either... even when it's antidemocratic government that often stands in the way of being the party of the People. For example, I'm a Bernie guy but he's never made the connection that most of what he complains about... wealth inequality, run away corporate power etc are because our system gives tiny minorities the ability to block needed reforms.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. If we had a plebiscitary democracy a lot of the rights we now enjoy we would no longer have.

50.1 % of the populace doesn't get to decide who I fuck, who I marry, whether I choose or to choose not to believe in a deity, whether I can or can not say Donald Trump is a deplorable oaf, et cetera.


Democratically elected majorities deprived black folk of their rights for over three hundred years in this country. It was the Constitution (the rule of law) which balanced the rights of the majority against the rights of the minority that granted them their rights. You can dislike a group all you want but you better sell em a burger and give em a place to pee.


Democracy in the absence of the rule of law, individual rights, habeas corpus leads to totalitarianism, “over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

[eniwetok]

13. more right wing memes...

You're all over the board... conflating democracy without limits and democratic representation.

Clearly we could have a system with constitutional protections AND democratic representation. Why is this so difficult for you to understand... IT'S WHAT ALL STATES MUST HAVE... one person, one vote, and all votes weigh the same in terms of representation.

So what kind of system did we have in those 3-4 years between ratification and the Bill Of Rights? Was this your dreaded democracy even if the structure of the government was antidemocratic and permitted a tyranny of the minority?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. So what kind of system did we have in those 3-4 years between ratification and the Bill Of Rights?

"So what kind of system did we have in those 3-4 years between ratification and the Bill Of Rights?"

A system where blacks, women, and the landless couldn't vote. Shit, if you put universal suffrage to a vote it might not pass today, in many parts of the nation.

My rights are not subject to a plebiscite. Over my body and mind I am sovereign. You can not vote to tell me what to do with it. You can not vote to deprive me of a vote, the way a lot of my black brothers and sisters were deprived of a vote until 1965.

You're all over the board... conflating democracy without limits and democratic representation.

The only limits in a majoritarian democracy are the limits 50.1% of the populace demands. What part of that don't you understand ?


Here's a question. If Arkansas had a referendum to ban marriage between people of the same gender and it passed with a majority of the vote would they be justified in banning those marriages ?

Of course not because we have rights that are not subject to plebiscite.

[eniwetok]

19. you're evading the question

You can't have it both ways... saying that we have rights (via BOR) that can't be taken away then try to bury the fact that the Framers did NOT believe a BOR was necessary. They believed that those individual natural rights were already secure given the construction of the Constitution which gave government no power in those areas. In fact Madison feared to enumerate SOME rights placed unenumerated rights at risk. But if you believe that rights needed to be specified to be protected, you're left with the question what was the state of rights in those 3-4 years between ratification of the Constitution and the ratification of the BOR.

Madison does relent in large part because he realizes that the new powers in the Constitution... even if seen in the narrowest light require new enumerated rights. As he says to Congress while introducing the draft BOR

Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.

Madison wanted the BOR to include a catch-all to protect unenumerated rights. This became the Ninth. His original draft was

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.


Despite this protection he was correct that enumerated rights would soon take precedent and unenumerated right would be at risk. Scalia made it his life's work to use his position to attack unenumerated rights he didn't approve of.

[eniwetok]

20. you're still not dealing with your contradictions...

You still can't seem to fathom that you're conflating the protection of rights... with antidemocratic government. THESE ARE SEPARATE ISSUES. One can have BOTH a democratic system WITH protection of rights. And you're not confronting your contradiction that whenever there are vote weighting/dilution schemes... and the entire federal government is riddled with such schemes, then it's possible to have a tyranny of the MINORITY... in this case those who represent states with a minority of the population. So who's then protecting the majority against a minority president and Senators who represent 18% of the population? The Senate has unique powers over nominations and treaties. And the Senate has a veto over anything coming out of the House. Who protects the majority when an amendment can be ratified by states with just 40% of the US population?

The ONLY way to deal with this insanity is for every citizen's vote to be equal in terms of representation... and that can only happen by abolishing state suffrage.

[myohmy2]

3. "...then where should a citizen's loyalties be?"

...I don't know...

...all I know is, if you win the majority of votes but lose the election, it's not democracy to me...

[eniwetok]

5. conversely... if

It's also not democratic if 18% of the US population gets 52% of the seats in the Senate where they have special powers over treaties and nominations... PLUS have a veto over anything coming out of the House. And it's not democratic if states with 4% of the population can block any amendment yet states with 40% can ratify one.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. But is it? It's a long read, but still nobody's done it better than...

Plato in Republic. There are quite a few commentaries and updates to his theories out there, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(Plato)

is a pretty good place to start if you don't want to download and read the whole thing. It's got short commentaries from modern scholars who have seen a lot more than Plato did, but who agree he's really on to something.

Anyway, democracy is not the only moral basis for government, and has serious flaws of its own. This was argued out at the Constitutional Convention, and the republic we have is due to some serious disagreements among the conventioneers. Many of whom read Plato.

So, where should a citizen's loyalties lie? Damn good question. It's asked all the time in many ways, like election season. Or when a war starts.

I can't help thinking the answer lies in being true to yourself. Everything starts there.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. There is a difference between democracy and liberal democracy.

Liberal democracy has features like the rule of law, individual rights, government by consensus, and pluralism.

I would have to live in a nation where 50.1% of the populace decide the scope of my rights.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. I think you meant "hate", but the term "democracy" has so many...

shades of meaning that we could parse it for weeks.

Yes, rule by the majority can be cruel and unjust. It's probably usually cruel and unjust as much as oligarchy or tyranny are, just in its own ways.

But, our methods of government will be as faulty as we ourselves are. Best we can do is try our best.

Whatever that is.

[eniwetok]

36. leaving aside your strawman argument

Are you going to address the fact that under our current system we can have a tyranny of the minority? Or did you miss the fact that our system gave us the Bush and Trump Juntas? And then there's the fact that 18% of the US population gets 52% of the Senate seats where they can block anything coming out of the House AND the antidemocratic Senate plus an unelected president can have exclusive power over nominations and treaties? And how about how states with 4% of the population can block any amendment yet states with 40% can ratify one?

[eniwetok]

21. and these other forms of morally legitimate government are?

"Anyway, democracy is not the only moral basis for government, and has serious flaws of its own. This was argued out at the Constitutional Convention, and the republic we have is due to some serious disagreements among the conventioneers. Many of whom read Plato."

The US lives in a contradiction where its founding principles in 18th century republican theory are best summed up in the Declaration Of Independence...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


That People are the sovereigns who create government... and the moral legitimacy of that government is derived from the consent of the governed. Much of these core principles was compromised away in the Constitution to satisfy states and special interests while still giving lip service to those principles. Much of the American psyche revolves trying to bang square pegs into round hole... believing our antidemocratic system is still democratic... or that if we have a republic, then it doesn't need democratic principles. And the fact is our electoral system can't accurately measure the will of the People, and the political system can't implement that will.

So perhaps rather that use the term "democracy" which some have bastardized into the wolves and the sheep metaphor we should use the term democratic principles.

[TreasonousBastard]

22. What if "the people" decided to try out that philosopher king for a while? It's not so easy to...

take a nation of hundreds of millions and figure out just what it is they really want. The entire point of a republic is to take the day-to-day operations away from the "town meeting" but republics have simply proven that no system is perfect.

On the bottom line, I think our system is the product of genius born in a very specific time and place to foster that genius. that it has problems is not the fault of the system, imperfect as it may be, but in ourselves for not using the system properly.

As usual, the Bard pegged it:

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates 145)
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

(Although assassination is not necessarily called for here.)

[eniwetok]

23. spoken like a true apologist for the system

"On the bottom line, I think our system is the product of genius born in a very specific time and place to foster that genius. that it has problems is not the fault of the system, imperfect as it may be, but in ourselves for not using the system properly."


So our defective antidemocratic and virtually reformproof system is blameless... even if it fails miserably to create morally legitimate government... and all blame falls on People.

Got it!

[TreasonousBastard]

25. We still haven't seen your better sytem.

[eniwetok]

34. easy answer... some basic principles...

How about a system that derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed... that means abolishing state suffrage and an electoral system that's designed to measure the will of the People and a political system that's designed to implement it? This means one person, one vote... AND ALL VOTES WEIGH THE SAME in terms of representation. People have the right to vote their conscience and get some representation for their beliefs. Civic equality in the vote eliminates the possibility of a tyranny of the minority which our system foolishly permits.

People have more than one attribute but our system system can't measure them. I'd propose one chamber for local representation, the second for ideological concerns... so if the Greens get 10% of the national vote they'd get 10% of the seats where today they get none. Legitimate minority rights can be protected via the Bill Of Right's approach or insuring minority groups always chair relevant congressional committees. In our system the power of minority groups (small states) isn't limited to protecting their legitimate rights... but extends to ALL matters permitting tyrannies of the minority.

Amendments are based on the POPULAR vote, not state votes where 4% of the population can block any reform. Amendment SHOULD be difficult to pass and I'd suggest super majorities in two successive presidential elections.

[eniwetok]

37. are you EVER going to explain

Are you ever going to explain your claim the system may be imperfect but the failure is all with the people?

So these specific imperfections are? And precisely how are the people to blame when the system is incapable of accurately measuring the will of the People and the system could not implement that will because it's antidemocratic?

It sounds more like the People are blameless and all fault is with the system.

[eniwetok]

24. faith-based politics

Years ago a friend's husband died at 36 leaving her and 3 young kids behind.

At the funeral the priest said we can't blame God for this death. God only does great things deserving thanks.

Yours is a similar faith based belief system... that there's nothing wrong with the system... the People are to blame.

The Constitution compromised away many desirable principles to suit the politics of the day. The Constitution set those politics in cement... and protected the system with a Civic Religion of which you are an adherent.

From a democratic standpoint, I find your views go beyond apologetics into appalling.

[TreasonousBastard]

26. Be as appalled as you like-- people built the system and people maintain it...

so unless you happen to have a god giving us the perfect system, you can shove it.

And I was serious about Aristotle.

[eniwetok]

29. so did YOUR god give us our system

Some do believe "God" gave us our system. That's Glenn Beck's position. Is that your belief?

And our system is so wonderful why were so many desirable principles compromised away and why other nations haven't adopted our system.

[TreasonousBastard]

32. No, but I still have no idea what your point could possibly be...

Our system is not perfect. No system is perfect, although some are a lot worse than others.

If you are looking for a perfect system, what would be its goals-- full individual freedom, verging on anarchy? Spiritual concerns addressed? Science and order rules? Peace by any means? Serving the ecosystem?

What is you point in criticizing what we have, as though it has a mind of its own?

[eniwetok]

33. RED HERRING ALERT!!

Gee... so if someone merely advocates for civic equality in the vote then they're for a system verging on anarchy?

Wow... thanks for proving that some are incapable of rationally critiquing our system. So you're saying it'd be impossible to have one chamber to represent local issues and another a national body based on proportional representation? Are you saying it's impossible to protect minority rights without giving a chosen minority... those in small states a bigger vote? If that's the "moral" solution then why not give ALL historically oppressed minorities a bigger vote? And, ya the Bill of Rights approach can't deal with this problem.

One of the big problems our system has... aside from giving ultra tiny minorities the ability to veto or block the majority is that intellectually the system is braindead. The electoral system simply can't measure ideological minorities if they're spread out nationally. I'm to the left of the Democratic Party and I can vote forever and never get any representation for my beliefs for curbing corporate power and making our system more democratic. In fact I maintain the REASON corporate power got out of control is because our system is antidemocratic. And I'd maintain the reason we have abysmal voting rates is because the system makes a mockery of self-government. After all, what's the point of elections when someone REJECTED by the People can "win" an election through a antidemocratic vote scheme called the EC? What's the point of government when 18% of the nation can veto anything coming out of the House? What's the point of pretending we can amend our system when states with 4% of the population can block any amendment.

Our system is affirmative action to the right wing... and Dems are not bright enough to realize how much it hurts them.

[eniwetok]

35. yours was a non-answer designed to end discussion

So your argument is our system is not perfect, no system is... and that's it? That's a non-answer if ever there was one... designed not to enlighten but to end discussion.

Why not tell us what the "non perfect" attributes of our system are... and your alternative?

Given you chose to join this discussion, it's not too much to ask

[LWolf]

8. With that principle,

which is nothing more than window dressing in the U.S. at this point.

[eniwetok]

10. Since 1789....

It's never been a principle enshrined in either the Articles or the Constitution... unless one makes the convoluted argument that the states are also among "the governed". But in reality states have no "will" and in the end whatever someone representing a "state" does, is representing people... and this is where the antidemocratic aspects of our system are. The net effect is if a person lives in WY, then their presidential vote is 3.3x that of someone in CA, and their senatorial and vote for any amendment is about 70x.

[LWolf]

11. Our system is riddled

with anti-democratic "aspects," beginning with the electoral college.

Of course, the classic battle that ended up splitting Congress into two bodies was, among other things, supposed to keep the majority from totally ruling over the minority; to make sure the minority still had a voice. That's an interesting point: is democracy all about the majority, or is it inclusive of the minority?

[eniwetok]

15. the Senate doesn't stop majority rule... it permits minority rule

The Senate is perhaps the most antidemocratic body on the planet where 18% of the population gets 52% of the seats.

As such 18% of the population can stop anything coming out of the House... and since the Senate has special powers over treaties and nominations... together with a minority president... can enter the US into treaties which become the .

Senators representing a mere 28% of the US population can ratify a treaty which then becomes supreme law under Art 6.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[LWolf]

16. And that's why

the House exists; why Congress was divided, as I already mentioned.

So, to ask again: is democracy all about the majority, or is it inclusive of the minority?

[eniwetok]

17. who's the minority?

Any one person has numerous attributes therefore there are no end of "minority groups" in the nation... but what US federalism does is grant ONE arbitrary minority, those who choose to live in small population states, special powers to block an arbitrary "majority", those who choose to live in larger states. In the process it gives some citizens bigger votes than others leading to antidemocratic results such as the Bush and Trump Juntas.

The problem with this arrangement SHOULD be obvious.. that the chosen "minority" power is not limited to just protecting any legitimate interests those in small state have... but their power extends to ALL issues. The currents of antidemocratic government are insidious. Clarence Thomas failed to be approved by Senators representing the majority of the population. In 2000 he becomes a key vote in Bush v Gore... giving Bush the presidency even after he was rejected by the People. US history was changed AGAINST the will of the People.

But if you believe giving minority groups extra power is the morally legitimate way to protect their interests... then why stop at those who chose to live in small states? Why not give these extra power to groups who HISTORICALLY have been oppressed... such as blacks and women? Why not Gays, the poor, the disabled?

I'm a progressive who can forever vote my conscience and my views are never represented in Congress. Progressives left of the Dem party may make up 15% of the electorate yet because they're spread out through the population... their votes count for shit... while the privileged few from the small states get 50% of the seats in the Senate. Wow... and you consider ours a system that protect "minority" rights?

The simple fact is there are ways to protect legitimate minority rights WITHOUT going antidemocratic... the Bill Of Rights proves its possible. Another way is to insure minority groups always chair select congressional committees so they can shape legislation on their issues... but otherwise they are not given extra power to shape ALL issues. Their power then is no greater than anyone else.

[eniwetok]

18. we were sold a bill of goods

We've all be brought up to believe that the Great Compromise that led to the House and Senate made the system fair. But it's an illusion based entirely on looking at how STATES are represented. But if we look at how any given CITIZEN is represented... the rationale all falls apart.

Take any citizen in WY... they have a presidential vote 3.3x that of any citizen in CA. They have a 70x bigger senatorial vote. But we're told that CA's bigger House delegation makes it fair.

But any given citizen in CA does NOT vote for their entire state's "delegation"... they only vote for ONE representative. So the net effect is their presidential vote is 1/3 that of the person in WY and 1/70 that for the Senate.

In our system those individual citizens living in large population states are treated unfairly... and those in small states have power they don't deserve in a democratic (rule by the people) system. in our system even though all states MUST have civic equality in the vote... where all votes weighed the same in terms of representation... on the federal level... there is grotesque discrimination based on choice of state residence. One might think liberal Dems might be out there protesting this obvious discrimination... but it's fair to say the vast majority embrace it. How do they live with this cognitive dissonance of believing they have a monopoly on democracy and yet betray it? It's because they never bother defining what democratic principles are. They just never moved past what they learned in 4th grade US history.

[gulliver]

27. In our system there is no difference between principle and the Democratic Party

Therefore, there is no dilemma. That's the case in reality anyway, and no arguments are valid outside that.

There's no straying, etc. That's all just simplistic, paranoid word fog. It seems like it means something, but it doesn't.

[eniwetok]

30. Really?

I can't remember a time when the Democratic Party even bothered to define what democratic principles were. For example if there's a core democratic principle it's one person, one vote, and all votes weigh the same in terms of representation. Our federal system is based on civic INequality in the vote... that the value of one's vote outside the House is based entirely on choice of state residence. State suffrage, the notion that "states" have a will when it's actually those who live there, is absolutely incompatible with democratic principles. When have Dems raised any objection about this? I dare say your argument is word fog. It seems like it means something, but it designed to conceal the core contradiction even liberal Dems suffer.

[FiveGoodMen]

28. The principles are what matter

Outcomes in which people don't suffer needlessly.

A party is just a vehicle to get there.

[malaise]

31. Michael Parenti got it right ages ago

http://www.michaelparenti.org/DemocracyForFew.html