Operating inside of the false, accepting the false as a valid concept, creates only more confusion

Operating inside of the false, accepting the false as a valid concept, creates only more confusion:

And here is what I mean by this:

1.) If you call a political system a democrasy that is just not a democrasy, that is called the false.

2.) If you operate inside of that false concept, pretending it is right, you create more falseness and confusion in doing so.

For example:

There is a family living in one house. The family has seven members. Grandpa, grandma, mother, father and three children. The house is owned and build by the grand-parents. Now there are a few possibilities to get along with each other, regarding who has what kind of right to deceide what will be done or not. Here are the possibilites:

1.) Only grand-dad can deceide.

2.) Only grand-ma can deceide.

3.) Only grand-ma and grand-dad can deceide.

4.) Only grand-parents and one of the parents can deceide (either father or mother).

5.) Only grand-parents and both parents can deceide.

6.) Only grand-parents and both parents and the one kid can deceide.

7.) Only grand-parents and both parents and two kids can deceide.

8.) All members of the house can deceide, but their votes and voices don't all count as equally strong or valid.

9.) All members of the house can deceide, and all votes and voice count equally. Seven people, seven votes/voices.


Now, what is called a democrasy and what is not a democrasy? And why?

This is a very simple example and every reasonable educated person should be able to tell what would be considered a democrasy and what just not. And is there a grey-zone?

And let me add that the fact that the grand-parents own and build the house has nothing to do with the democratic (or non-democratic) choise-making process in the household. Or does it? And if so, why?

I'm very much interested in everybodys take on what democrasy is under this premise. I'm also in the process of defining the term DEMOCRASY as good and accurat as possible.

Thanks for participating in advance.

The word democracy is a twist they placed on us a long time ago. Voting by democratic means is what is meant in a Democratic Republic. Meaning the peoples (all the peoples) vote should be what counts, of voting age (btw). Children aren't mature enough.

They divided that into two parties… Democrat and Republican, everyone has been confused ever since.

a reply to: intrptr

The word democracy is a twist they placed on us a long time ago.

Yes, I agree. And now we can try to define that term as good as possible under a very simple premise, so every school-child can understand it.

Meaning the peoples (all the peoples) vote should be what counts, of voting age (btw). Children aren't mature enough.

What about giving children at a certain age, for example the age of twelve, half or a quater of a vote? Why not?

a reply to: Willingly

What about giving children at a certain age, for example the age of twelve, half or a quater of a vote? Why not?

One grown up, one vote. Many adults are still child like though, have never grown up. Age doesn't always determine emotional maturity.

a reply to: intrptr

One grown up, one vote. Many adults are still child like though, have never grown up. Age doesn't always determine emotional maturity.

Then...why not letting the children of a certain age, for example twelve, make a test to prove their maturity and give them a half vote/voice?

If some adults, or so called adults, are less mature than some children, which I don't doubt, why not let all make a test to prove their maturity in proper deceicion-making? For example: You let them define terms, like what is:

- fairness
- honesty
- lying
- who owns what and why
- how many books have you read and which ones
- who is your hero/heroine and why
- what is poverty and what can be done about it
- what is good food and what is not

etc...

Why would only age matter in being allowed to vote? Although under perfect circumstances regarding education, it might be the most easy criteria, voting at a certain age. But under im-perfect circumstances it might not be the best.

a reply to: Willingly

Trying to define "democracy" via a logical argument in how it works (or not) in human undertakings is similar to trying to define "God" by various interpretations of the word from the religions that hold that term dear in one manner or another. It is pointless.

Mm mm...so we uphold Israel and protect "her" because "she" is a democracy. Then we invade Iraq and afghan to "spread democracy". Well, just don't know what say. Sorry widows and orphans for the lies.

I would like to specify my take on what a democrasy is (inside of my own simple premise):

1.) Every member of the household picks a certain duty he or she has to do. For example, grand-pa does the lawn and does the shopping for drinks (milk, water, juice, etc.) for all members of the household and cooks on fridays. Grandma does the shopping for other stuff and cooks on saturdays and mondays, because she choose to do so. Dad is responisble for cleaning the bathroom and for doing the dishes, when he is at home and cooks on sundays. Mom cooks on thursdays and does the shopping for most of the other stuff that is needed, does gardening too and the children do the dishes when dad is not at home, bring out the garbage, and keep their room in a reasonable condition. ...etc.

2.) If someone can not fullfill ones duty, someone else must do it, else things aren't getting done.

3.) Everyone who does a duty, has a voice to vote, because of that fact, contributing to the households wellbeing.

4.) The one with the most dutys correctely performed over time has the most strong voice, when voting is needed and neccessary. Or not? If not, why not?

5.) Going to school and doing homework is also a valid duty for the kids.

If all pick their particular duty themselfs, out of free-will and what they prefer to do, would there be trouble and arguments about the way they live together? I don't think so. Because here I'm talking about a healthy and reasonable educated family that is not overly neurotic, because it lives under such circumstances, where they freely choose who does what and what not.

Arguments are won by the best arguments because all members of such family know what a reasonable argument is, even the little ones do, because they grew up in such climate.

I think it's not too far out to archive that kind of harmony in a family-unit when there are no outer factors that disturb them too much. And out of such family-climate comes healthy, reasonable and happy off-spring who in return will be responsible and honorable members of the greater society they live in.

Does anybody think that is a naive view? Impossible to realize? If so, why do you think so?

a reply to: Aliensun

Trying to define "democracy" via a logical argument in how it works (or not) in human undertakings is similar to trying to define "God" by various interpretations of the word from the religions that hold that term dear in one manner or another. It is pointless.

No, it is not pointless, because "God" and democrasy are not in the same category of "things" or ideas. Democrasy can be not just defined, but made real very easily, if there is a will to do so. Democrasy is a way of living together peacefully and a means of deceicion-making. The god-concept on the other hand has no such possibility because it does not operate in the same reality as democrasy does.

a reply to: MOMof3

Mm mm...so we uphold Israel and protect "her" because "she" is a democracy. Then we invade Iraq and afghan to "spread democracy". Well, just don't know what say. Sorry widows and orphans for the lies.

Did you, personaly, invade those countrys? No. And if you would have known who did it, for what (actual) reasons and would have known the consequences of it, would you have said yes to it? Probably not, I guess.

a reply to: Willingly

56,000 of my peers died in Nam for the war cry "democracy" to stop communism. Now revealed as a lie.

a reply to: Willingly

A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Majority rule is mob rule.

A Constitutional Republic respects and protects the natural inalienable rights of everyone, allowing both the majorities and the minorities to live according to their will and conscience.

The hellhole we're suffering in now is a direct consequence of violating those profound principles.

“A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” - Benjamin Franklin
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49." Thomas Jefferson?

I think Franklin and Jefferson define democracy quite well in these two statements alone.

The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic, with democratic principles, such as the right to vote for our leadership. We live by the law of the land, which is the constitution, not by Mob rule as explained above. Democracy has never worked as a form of government, and it never will by itself.

"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking."
James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787)

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” John Adams

Democracy defined.

a reply to: Boadicea

A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Majority rule is mob rule.

Where did you get that idea from?

A Constitutional Republic respects and protects the natural inalienable rights of everyone, allowing both the majorities and the minorities to live according to their will and conscience.

Sounds good on paper, and I'm all for it. But is it reality? Does it deliver what it seem to promise? And if not, how comes it fails? And a constitutional republic is a democrasy on paper only, when it is ruled and runned by anti-democrats, who define democrasy as some sort of "mop-rule" for the sake of keeping their lies alive. And one of those lies is that so called capitalism is a free-market economy. Which it is not.

The hellhole we're suffering in now is a direct consequence of violating those profound principles.

What profound principles are you refering to? Can you name them for me? I'm not a us-american citizen. I'm from Europe.

Now I am really confused. I am a child from WW2 and Nam, democracy was an every day buzz word from adults and fallout shelters. Ok. I did some study and accept that we are a republic. That point was there, but not pushed by the adults, and now I have to wonder why. So, what about this sovereign for states issue, like the Bundy's, where does that fit in. I mean, we need to figure this out so we can teach the kids the truth.

a reply to: Klassified

Do you really want to discuss what democrasy is with me, or do you only want to tell me what it is by quoting others, who defined to for you as being the "worst" kind of government one can possibly have, bound to fail, in their eyes, because of their own agendas?

In other words, are you willing to talk about it, or are you willing to convince me that what you posted is the case? I'm not wasting my time with arguing with someone who is not interested in keeping it simple and staying open minded.

No offense, of course.

a reply to: MOMof3

Now I am really confused. I am a child from WW2 and Nam, democracy was an every day buzz word from adults and fallout shelters. Ok. I did some study and accept that we are a republic. That point was there, but not pushed by the adults, and now I have to wonder why. So, what about this sovereign for states issue, like the Bundy's, where does that fit in. I mean, we need to figure this out so we can teach the kids the truth.

Please keep in mind that I'm not a us-american citizen, and therefore I'm not familar with the details of the us-american history, because I'm from Europe.

Can you re-phrase what it is what you want to talk about?

I was trying to keep it simple by comming up with what my OP is stating. Can you stay in that frame-work first before we may proceide to a more complex discussion about what democrasy is or not is?

Are you getting my point?

a reply to: Willingly

This is a simplified version of history. After WW2, every one was afraid of communism. Thus, Korea and Viet Nam wars. The war cry in our high school pep rallies and churches, were "spread democracy to stop communism". My peers went to Viet Nam believing they would come back heroes like their fathers from WW2. The lessons of being a republic were pushed back with tales of democracy, atom bombs, fallout shelters. Now, I reflect and wonder why wasn't the war cry fight for the republic. It was all brainwashing because of the draft. I don't know what they teach in schools now a days, but maybe I should find out.

a reply to: Willingly

Where did you get that idea from?

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch" is a longstanding adage usually attributed to Ben Franklin, though there is no evidence for such in his known writings.

And it is not an idea so much as it is an illustration of the flaws in a democracy or democratic process, in which the majority rules the minority, with no thought or consideration for the minority's equal rights. As opposed to a Constitutional Republic, which is what the USA has, which is Constitutionally mandated to protect the rights of all -- regardless of what the majority wants or says.

So, in other words, ten of my friends and I cannot "vote" to take away your rights... at least in theory.

Sounds good on paper, and I'm all for it. But is it reality?

Reality in what sense? In the sense that these words/principles/rights have in fact been written down and declared the guiding principles and legal foundation for the USA government, yes, it is a reality. But all systems can be corrupted, so in another sense, no, it is not reality.

Does it deliver what it seem to promise?

When the corrupt don't corrupt it, of course it delivers what it promises.

And if not, how comes it fails?

Because corrupt people can corrupt anything... as can anyone with no respect or consideration for others and their rights.

And a constitutional republic is a democrasy on paper only...

A Constitutional Republic is never a democracy... if it were a democracy, it would be called a democracy.

...when it is ruled and runned by anti-democrats, who define democrasy as some sort of "mop-rule" for the sake of keeping their lies alive.

Hahahahaha!!!!! Okay... But I gotta tell ya... this anti-democrat is standing up for your rights against that same mob rule, even knowing that you would throw me to the wolves.

And one of those lies is that so called capitalism is a free-market economy. Which it is not.

Actually, technically, ALL economic systems are capitalist, since "capital" is generally defined (at least for financial purposes) as the assets, resources and means of production. All economic systems determine how assets, resources and means of production will be directed, controlled and distributed. I am one who has long maintained that our "free-market" system is now anything but "free." Call it corporatism, crony capitalism, oligarchy, whatever you wish -- plenty of names for it. But please don't assume I don't know the difference.

What profound principles are you refering to? Can you name them for me? I'm not a us-american citizen. I'm from Europe.

Fundamental inalienable natural rights for all; specifically, in the USA, in accordance with the natural law philosophy of John Locke, going back to Cicero and even Plato, described in the Declaration of Independence as "self-evident." In other words, if you can do it for your self and by your self, then it is a natural right. If you have to force others to do something for you, then it is not your right.

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: Klassified

Do you really want to discuss what democrasy is with me, or do you only want to tell me what it is by quoting others, who defined to for you as being the "worst" kind of government one can possibly have, bound to fail, in their eyes, because of their own agendas?

In other words, are you willing to talk about it, or are you willing to convince me that what you posted is the case? I'm not wasting my time with arguing with someone who is not interested in keeping it simple and staying open minded.

No offense, of course.

If I wasn't willing to discuss it, I wouldn't have bothered posting to start with. The quotes were used because they said it more eloquently than I could. I have studied our form of government, and I see it the way I do, because of that, not because I believe everything I read, no matter how eloquent it may be.