Since when has there ever been a true democracy? The citizen still remains the slave as government controls all. Does the citizen ever get a true vote on how he is governed? Maybe he gets to choose his leaders, but not how they choose to lead which is through endless laws, rules, regulations and strangulations.
One breaks free when he discovers the illusion of government. That is that it exists with the belief that we cannot exist without it. Total BS.
Do you know that if you create a Trust, you will have your own nation that is recognized by the US. It's not quite that easy but it is true. All the elites have Trusts. Own nothing, control everything!!
Christopher, I am in with being left to fend for myself in a matter of speaking, probably in a group let’s say. I began thinking of secession wether it be states or large groups, even millions. One thing that came into my mind was the 34 plus trillion dollar debt, which to be honest with you I don’t completely understand. So we owe China 3-4 trillion I guess?? And we may owe others money, but who do we owe 25 trillion to? And if a state was able to succeed don’t they owe money to the debt? Does this in itself create servitude? Would each person owe their part of the debt to be truly released from this tyranny, almost like leaving California…
There is a limit to the extent to which the Constitution can be misinterpreted. It's hard to interpret words to mean the opposite of what they say. Besides, the Constitution provides for a separation of powers between the President, the two houses of congress, the Supreme Court, and the states. So, dictatorial power isn't concentrated in one person. Besides, voters will tolerate only so much.
Every time I hear "Our Democracy," for some reason, it sounds like, "Our socialist state, where you will be a slave and we will rule over you."
I long for the good old days when you could duel to avenge your insulted honor and pride.
The only true system of governance is one whereby a man has his natural rights accepted and tolerated and those who have been elected to protect the parchment, actually do that.
This current crop of baboons in DC has no idea what the Constitution is and what is says.
Until 1972 I didn't have a satisfactory name for my political philosophy, but I knew I was the opposite of an authoritarian. I had read that the opposite of authoritarianism is democracy, but that didn't seem right to me. In 1972 I read an article about a new political party, the Libertarian Party, which mentioned several libertarian positions on various issues. For the first time in my life, I found nothing to disagree with. At that time, I suspected I'm a libertarian, a suspicion that was confirmed in 1976 when I scored 100% libertarian on a 20-item test. My test sheet showed that the opposite of authoritarianism is not democracy but libertarianism.
18th-century Scottish historian Alexander Tytler proposed the Tytler (approximately 200-year) Cycle of Democracy, according to which democracies evolve through various historical stages until they collapse and are replaced by dictatorship. Let's hope Tytler was mistaken.
Still, the expression “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch” is uncomfortably close to reality. Pure democracy has an unfortunate theoretical consequence: it's potentially self-destructive. It's logically possible that 51% of the population could vote to kill the other 49%. If majority rule prevails, that 49% face death. The remaining 51% could be further divided into 51% who want the other 49% dead, and the process could continue until only three individuals remain alive, the proverbial two wolves and a sheep. After the decision of the two “wolves” is carried out, democracy ends because there is no longer the possibility of a majority.
That's all true and well written. I'm looking forward to the next installment where the minor British aristocracy in America pushed the major British aristocracy by smuggling to avoid taxes. As they controlled local courts, no one would be convicted when charged.
To collect taxes, the British Parliament replaced the court system in America with military tribunals. This upset the colonists because they were British citizens and had rights to a fair trial by their peers. Then the local aristocracy promised the people Democracy, at least democracy compared to monarchy. Many people, who wanted to have a say in government instead of government by the elite joined the revolution.
However, the bankers such as Alexander Hamilton conned the people by not allowing them to pay taxes or mortgage payments in Continental script, which they were paid to participate in the revolutionary war. As a result, many people lost their farms. People got upset and started using democracy in the states.
The bankers bought up the script for pennies on dollar. Then these Federalists won the debates over a new constitution and their first act was to reimburse the bankers 100% for their continental script, giving them a 50:1 return on investment in a short time.
Because of democracy in the states, the Federalists were afraid of losing their power so they created the Constitution with clear constraints on democracy. They gave the president of the US more power than the king of England had, essentially creating an elected King according to Adams. But not elected by the People, elected by the elite. And senators were chosen by the elites in the states. And members of the house were chosen by those in the states with enough money to own property. This could hardly be called a democracy. In fact, it was anti-democracy as explained by Madison in the Federalist papers, a work of propaganda by the Federalists to ensure the new constitution was ratified. Thanks to Madison, the common teaching in the US is that a direct democracy is dangerous because it empowers the majority to rule the minority. But Madison was actually talking about the people gaining power over the minority of the very wealthy elites in his Federalist paper.
Several hundred years later and finally women and people of color get to vote. But who do we get to choose? We get to choose between those two candidates who the elite have already selected for us. And then they serve the political parties who in turn serve the elites and their businesses.
The political parties rule our government through only three people, the president, the Senate, majority leader, and the Speaker of the House. The latter two choose the committee 's and the heads of the committees, determine the bills that are heard, how they are written, and tell their party members how to vote. In short, this all adds up to more of an oligarchy than a democracy. Add to that the political parties creating the political divide to differentiate themselves and to compete and we have the political extremism that is plaguing our country.
If you are interested in a true democracy, based on a new design that uses collective intelligence instead of simply voting one's biases, check out endpoliticsnow.com.
After watching the normalization of the lies that surround Ukraine, Israel/Gaza and even COVID, I've come to realize that likely everything I ever thought to be true is likely a lie also. There is no way to know if the history we think we know is the truth or just more lies.
But if I were a betting man, I'd go with the latter.
I wonder whether your response is to my post or to that of another person.
I've seen a passage such as the following attributed variously to Alexander Tytler and to Alexis de Tocqueville (I believe Tytler was the author):
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
According to the Tytler Cycle of Democracy, the dictatorship is eventually followed by democracy and the cycle continues. I find it plausible that democracies are doomed to collapse due to loose fiscal policy. But I doubt that a resulting dictatorship is inevitable. I don't see why the cycle can't be broken by the work of people such as yourself. Your task is not the sort that one is likely to take on for the sake of wealth, power, or status--as America's founders knew who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause of liberty. I'm a subscriber because I think I might be able to help.
Since when has there ever been a true democracy? The citizen still remains the slave as government controls all. Does the citizen ever get a true vote on how he is governed? Maybe he gets to choose his leaders, but not how they choose to lead which is through endless laws, rules, regulations and strangulations.
One breaks free when he discovers the illusion of government. That is that it exists with the belief that we cannot exist without it. Total BS.
The word democracy is derived from the Greek root word daemon, or demon. 👿
Do you know that if you create a Trust, you will have your own nation that is recognized by the US. It's not quite that easy but it is true. All the elites have Trusts. Own nothing, control everything!!
Christopher, I am in with being left to fend for myself in a matter of speaking, probably in a group let’s say. I began thinking of secession wether it be states or large groups, even millions. One thing that came into my mind was the 34 plus trillion dollar debt, which to be honest with you I don’t completely understand. So we owe China 3-4 trillion I guess?? And we may owe others money, but who do we owe 25 trillion to? And if a state was able to succeed don’t they owe money to the debt? Does this in itself create servitude? Would each person owe their part of the debt to be truly released from this tyranny, almost like leaving California…
Great points but what to do while waiting for empire death? I'm so sick of fucking sith lords bro. Lol. 🔥 piece 🙂
There is a limit to the extent to which the Constitution can be misinterpreted. It's hard to interpret words to mean the opposite of what they say. Besides, the Constitution provides for a separation of powers between the President, the two houses of congress, the Supreme Court, and the states. So, dictatorial power isn't concentrated in one person. Besides, voters will tolerate only so much.
Every time I hear "Our Democracy," for some reason, it sounds like, "Our socialist state, where you will be a slave and we will rule over you."
I long for the good old days when you could duel to avenge your insulted honor and pride.
The only true system of governance is one whereby a man has his natural rights accepted and tolerated and those who have been elected to protect the parchment, actually do that.
This current crop of baboons in DC has no idea what the Constitution is and what is says.
🤯, Dude. Are you the same guy I met a while back here? Idk, but me likey.
Until 1972 I didn't have a satisfactory name for my political philosophy, but I knew I was the opposite of an authoritarian. I had read that the opposite of authoritarianism is democracy, but that didn't seem right to me. In 1972 I read an article about a new political party, the Libertarian Party, which mentioned several libertarian positions on various issues. For the first time in my life, I found nothing to disagree with. At that time, I suspected I'm a libertarian, a suspicion that was confirmed in 1976 when I scored 100% libertarian on a 20-item test. My test sheet showed that the opposite of authoritarianism is not democracy but libertarianism.
18th-century Scottish historian Alexander Tytler proposed the Tytler (approximately 200-year) Cycle of Democracy, according to which democracies evolve through various historical stages until they collapse and are replaced by dictatorship. Let's hope Tytler was mistaken.
Still, the expression “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch” is uncomfortably close to reality. Pure democracy has an unfortunate theoretical consequence: it's potentially self-destructive. It's logically possible that 51% of the population could vote to kill the other 49%. If majority rule prevails, that 49% face death. The remaining 51% could be further divided into 51% who want the other 49% dead, and the process could continue until only three individuals remain alive, the proverbial two wolves and a sheep. After the decision of the two “wolves” is carried out, democracy ends because there is no longer the possibility of a majority.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏💪🧠
I can only applaud in agreement!
Exactly!
That's all true and well written. I'm looking forward to the next installment where the minor British aristocracy in America pushed the major British aristocracy by smuggling to avoid taxes. As they controlled local courts, no one would be convicted when charged.
To collect taxes, the British Parliament replaced the court system in America with military tribunals. This upset the colonists because they were British citizens and had rights to a fair trial by their peers. Then the local aristocracy promised the people Democracy, at least democracy compared to monarchy. Many people, who wanted to have a say in government instead of government by the elite joined the revolution.
However, the bankers such as Alexander Hamilton conned the people by not allowing them to pay taxes or mortgage payments in Continental script, which they were paid to participate in the revolutionary war. As a result, many people lost their farms. People got upset and started using democracy in the states.
The bankers bought up the script for pennies on dollar. Then these Federalists won the debates over a new constitution and their first act was to reimburse the bankers 100% for their continental script, giving them a 50:1 return on investment in a short time.
Because of democracy in the states, the Federalists were afraid of losing their power so they created the Constitution with clear constraints on democracy. They gave the president of the US more power than the king of England had, essentially creating an elected King according to Adams. But not elected by the People, elected by the elite. And senators were chosen by the elites in the states. And members of the house were chosen by those in the states with enough money to own property. This could hardly be called a democracy. In fact, it was anti-democracy as explained by Madison in the Federalist papers, a work of propaganda by the Federalists to ensure the new constitution was ratified. Thanks to Madison, the common teaching in the US is that a direct democracy is dangerous because it empowers the majority to rule the minority. But Madison was actually talking about the people gaining power over the minority of the very wealthy elites in his Federalist paper.
Several hundred years later and finally women and people of color get to vote. But who do we get to choose? We get to choose between those two candidates who the elite have already selected for us. And then they serve the political parties who in turn serve the elites and their businesses.
The political parties rule our government through only three people, the president, the Senate, majority leader, and the Speaker of the House. The latter two choose the committee 's and the heads of the committees, determine the bills that are heard, how they are written, and tell their party members how to vote. In short, this all adds up to more of an oligarchy than a democracy. Add to that the political parties creating the political divide to differentiate themselves and to compete and we have the political extremism that is plaguing our country.
If you are interested in a true democracy, based on a new design that uses collective intelligence instead of simply voting one's biases, check out endpoliticsnow.com.
After watching the normalization of the lies that surround Ukraine, Israel/Gaza and even COVID, I've come to realize that likely everything I ever thought to be true is likely a lie also. There is no way to know if the history we think we know is the truth or just more lies.
But if I were a betting man, I'd go with the latter.
With what do you expect to replace Democracy?
Name one society that functioned without some resemblance of Govt.
I wonder whether your response is to my post or to that of another person.
I've seen a passage such as the following attributed variously to Alexander Tytler and to Alexis de Tocqueville (I believe Tytler was the author):
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
According to the Tytler Cycle of Democracy, the dictatorship is eventually followed by democracy and the cycle continues. I find it plausible that democracies are doomed to collapse due to loose fiscal policy. But I doubt that a resulting dictatorship is inevitable. I don't see why the cycle can't be broken by the work of people such as yourself. Your task is not the sort that one is likely to take on for the sake of wealth, power, or status--as America's founders knew who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause of liberty. I'm a subscriber because I think I might be able to help.