I get so damned tired of seeing in print, reference to our Democracy, when the Founders made it quite clear how they detested the idea of majority rule.
Walter Williams nails it.

Our Founders saw democracy as a variant of tyranny. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Alexander Hamilton said, "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

By the way, the word democracy appears in none of our founding documents.
The Founders of our nation recognized that we need government, but because the essence of government is force, and force is evil, government should be as small as possible.

The Founders intended for us to have a limited republican form of government where human rights precede government and there is rule of law. Citizens, as well as government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society only to protect its citizens against force and fraud, but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. By contrast, in a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government deems it to be. Rights may be granted or taken away.

Alert to the dangers of majority rule, the Constitution's framers inserted several anti-majority rules. In order to amend the Constitution, it requires a two-thirds vote of both houses, or two-thirds of state legislatures to propose an amendment, and it requires three-fourths of state legislatures for ratification. Election of the president is not done by a majority popular vote, but by the Electoral College.

Part of the reason for having two houses of Congress is that it places an obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The Constitution gives the president a veto to thwart the power of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override the president's veto.

If you don't have time to examine our founding documents, just ask yourself: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag read to the democracy, or to the republic, for which it stands? Or, did Julia Ward Howe make a mistake in titling her Civil War song "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"? Should it have been "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy"?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/walter-e-williams/should-the-majority-rule-the-rest-of-us/

We are supposed to be a Republic and that's how it stands to me.  I enjoyed the history lessons I received.   

Mr. Franklin replied, "A republic, madam – if you can keep it." 

The MSM and politicians have been spewing that notion for a long time, and the ignorant morons believe it. Too bad their reading comprehension is at the 3rd grade level.

Quote from: tac on March 25, 2015, 06:35:46 AM
The MSM and politicians have been spewing that notion for a long time, and the ignorant morons believe it. Too bad their reading comprehension is at the 3rd grade level.

The depressing thing is how many Republicans (George W Bush for one) insist on referring to our nation as a Democracy!

It has become sort of a litmus test for me. If I hear a Republican refer to the U.S. as a Democracy, I know he/she is most likely a RINO!

Quote from: Darth Fife on March 25, 2015, 07:03:45 AM
The depressing thing is how many Republicans (George W Bush for one) insist on referring to our nation as a Democracy!

It has become sort of a litmus test for me. If I hear a Republican refer to the U.S. as a Democracy, I know he/she is most likely a RINO!

Or more accurate, a Leftist. You make a good point, willful ignorance is a telltale sign of leftists, like a badge of ignorance/honor, indistinguishable from one another .

The Founding Fathers were well aware how pure democracies were all subject to the rise of demagogues, and an ongoing threat to freedom and the rights of property. Think about that, when you hear that clown, Obama, float the idea of making voting mandatory. Just what this country needs - hordes of LIV's being forced to the polls.

Quote from: Solar on March 24, 2015, 08:09:33 PM
I get so damned tired of seeing in print, reference to our Democracy, when the Founders made it quite clear how they detested the idea of majority rule.
Walter Williams nails it.

Our Founders saw democracy as a variant of tyranny. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Alexander Hamilton said, "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

By the way, the word democracy appears in none of our founding documents.
The Founders of our nation recognized that we need government, but because the essence of government is force, and force is evil, government should be as small as possible.

The Founders intended for us to have a limited republican form of government where human rights precede government and there is rule of law. Citizens, as well as government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society only to protect its citizens against force and fraud, but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. By contrast, in a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government deems it to be. Rights may be granted or taken away.

Alert to the dangers of majority rule, the Constitution's framers inserted several anti-majority rules. In order to amend the Constitution, it requires a two-thirds vote of both houses, or two-thirds of state legislatures to propose an amendment, and it requires three-fourths of state legislatures for ratification. Election of the president is not done by a majority popular vote, but by the Electoral College.

Part of the reason for having two houses of Congress is that it places an obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The Constitution gives the president a veto to thwart the power of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override the president's veto.

If you don't have time to examine our founding documents, just ask yourself: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag read to the democracy, or to the republic, for which it stands? Or, did Julia Ward Howe make a mistake in titling her Civil War song "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"? Should it have been "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy"?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/walter-e-williams/should-the-majority-rule-the-rest-of-us/

Solar I am sick to death of seeing that as well. You are absolutely correct, we don't have a democracy. Because the founders knew about things like ancient Athens. And the dangers a "democracy" brings to the liberty of the people. 

That is why we have a Constitutional representative republic. This is why as you point out, the Constitution limits the power of government, enumerating that the real political power is supposed to rest with the States, and lastly the American people themselves.

But to be honest, sooo many people think we live in a democracy. Sooo many people think, it's ok for the majority, to violate, strip away, and abrogate the rights of this or that group who is in the minority because well they are the majority, and this is a "democracy".

The blunt truth, one which I've been telling liberals over and over (and hence why I call them dimwits) the founders would have seen what Pelosi said, and what she, Reid, and Obama did regarding "obammydon'tcare", shutting out the "minority" party, and by extension the people themselves, purely as tyranny. Not to mention a violation of the words, AND the intent of the Constitution they gave us.

Solar can you re-post and then sticky the OP in the Constitution forum, if not here in the main? This is surely something that folks, particularly youngsters today, need to be taught, and to learn. 

Quote from: mdgiles on March 25, 2015, 10:23:38 AM
The Founding Fathers were well aware how pure democracies were all subject to the rise of demagogues, and an ongoing threat to freedom and the rights of property. Think about that, when you hear that clown, Obama, float the idea of making voting mandatory. Just what this country needs - hordes of LIV's being forced to the polls.

As has been pointed out by people who are far smarter than I, a true democracy is two lions and a zebra deciding what to eat for dinner!

Quote from: mdgiles on March 25, 2015, 10:23:38 AM
The Founding Fathers were well aware how pure democracies were all subject to the rise of demagogues, and an ongoing threat to freedom and the rights of property. Think about that, when you hear that clown, Obama, float the idea of making voting mandatory. Just what this country needs - hordes of LIV's being forced to the polls.

But Giles, it works so well in North Korea.....

Quote from: Solar on March 25, 2015, 04:10:44 PM
But Giles, it works so well in North Korea.....

Do they get to vote against the newest Kim, or are they handed a ballot with his name on it.

Quote from: mdgiles on March 25, 2015, 04:14:09 PM
Do they get to vote against the newest Kim, or are they handed a ballot with his name on it.

Would it matter? After all, he runs unopposed. Exactly where we'd wind up if the left had their way.

Can blame Hollywood, MSM and the State propaganda under Woodrow Wilson and FDR for this confusion.

Even in Ancient Greece Democracy did not mean every slacker or retard on the block could vote, it was only respected land owners and distinguished citizens of the state that had the right to vote. Even in early parliamentary Norwegian democracy the right to vote was only for the landowners which constituted 40% of the population. With the rise of the State Bureaucracy and the industrial age this changed when the proportion was down to 7,5% of the population being eligible to vote.

To respond to the change in economic system the vote was change from landowner to income earners. The income dependent on the urbanization of your residence, higher income for the cities and logically lower income for the peasants due to the disparity in income between the sectors. And this is rightfully where it should have ended as only those paying into the system, carrying the rest of the society on top of their shoulders should have the right to decide how that money is spent because it is after their capital they are being forced to contribute to the leviathan that is the greater good.

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 26, 2015, 08:28:52 AM
Can blame Hollywood, MSM and the State propaganda under Woodrow Wilson and FDR for this confusion.

Even in Ancient Greece Democracy did not mean every slacker or retard on the block could vote, it was only respected land owners and distinguished citizens of the state that had the right to vote. Even in early parliamentary Norwegian democracy the right to vote was only for the landowners which constituted 40% of the population. With the rise of the State Bureaucracy and the industrial age this changed when the proportion was down to 7,5% of the population being eligible to vote.

To respond to the change in economic system the vote was change from landowner to income earners. The income dependent on the urbanization of your residence, higher income for the cities and logically lower income for the peasants due to the disparity in income between the sectors. And this is rightfully where it should have ended as only those paying into the system, carrying the rest of the society on top of their shoulders should have the right to decide how that money is spent because it is after their capital they are being forced to contribute to the leviathan that is the greater good.

I'd agree with that. So long as you included those who serve this nation in some capacity. Service SHOULD equal citizenship. 

Actually in ancient Greece everyone above a certain income - enough money to buy the arms and weapons necessary to fight the city's battles, which all voting citizens were required to participate in - could vote. Later - at least in Athens - the vote was extended to the rowers, who propelled the warships the city depended upon.