The Death of Democracy (Page 8): You don't seem to understand that the Leftist/Liberal/Democrats don't give a fig about the Constitution. In fact, I believe they want to tear it down.

Armagh

Larry the Legend wrote:

Source documents being, in date order, the Declara... (show quote)

You don't seem to understand that the Leftist/Liberal/Democrats don't give a fig about the Constitution. In fact, I believe they want to tear it down.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Armagh wrote:

WHO MADE THE VIDEO?

Did you watch it?

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Armagh wrote:

You don't seem to understand that the Leftist/Liberal/Democrats don't give a fig about the Constitution. In fact, I believe they want to tear it down.

Oh, that I fully understand. I was confirming that I am familiar with the source documents you asked me about. Now will you PLEASE just watch the bloody video? Pretty please?

Armagh

Larry the Legend wrote:

Oh, that I fully understand. I was confirming that I am familiar with the source documents you asked me about. Now will you PLEASE just watch the bloody video? Pretty please?

Will you be around tomorrow, Larry? I'll watch it, and get back to you. I have to go now. Waaaaay past my bedtime.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Armagh wrote:

Will you be around tomorrow, Larry? I'll watch it, and get back to you. I have to go now. Waaaaay past my bedtime.

I'll be here. Sleep tight.

Armagh

Larry the Legend wrote:

I'll be here. Sleep tight.

Watched it, Larry, and found it well presented. (Still, I'd like to know who produced it, and when). I agreed with most of it, though there are some parts that could bear explication. Here's some thoughts:

1. I have never defined democracy as the rule of the "majority". As you saw in my posts, I refer to any government by the governed as a democracy. (By the way, another good source document is Tocqueville's "Democracy in America"---A Frenchman's view of American democracy. Tocqueville stated here that he would rather live under the yoke of a minority than of a majority.)

I think the passage from the Federalist #10 was taken out of context; I need to reread it. The importance of the Federalist #10 is in Madison's analysis that "the product and price of liberty is faction." The Federalist #10 was about factions; and Madison tried to allay fears of violent factions by stating that "representation would tend to quell the violence of factions". He didn't say that, but that is what he meant. The founders wanted a "representative democracy", that is, voters vote for the people who will make the law; voters do not themselves make the law. So in that sense, there is no "majority rule" as this video seems to imply that democracy is.

2. I have previously researched the meaning of "republic", but found there was no one definition used by all. This video gives as good a definition as any.

3. The history of how the Roman Empire evolved from the Roman Republic is more complex than is stated in the video. One thing left out was that Roman conquests resulted in such a greater land mass and population that the Republic was unable to handle it. The defects of empire. Something else left out is Cataline and Caesar, both of whom catered to the masses. It wasn't just the masses "voting" to become a despotic (on the oriental pattern) empire.

4. This is a fairly trivial observation, but one you might consider: the Roman Republic was based firmly on laws, just as was said in the video: I think it was called "lex Romanae". Once it became an empire, with a god-king, the emperor himself promulgated "regulations" that were vague and variable. "Regulation", in fact, is a word derived from the Latin "rex" or king. By the way, Rome wasn't always a Republic, there was a time when there were kings, then a republic again, then an empire.

5. Another source book is Montesquieu's "The Spirit of the Laws". Montesquieu in the 18th century attempted to trace the development of laws in every society, ancient and "modern", to try to find both commonalities and differences. The Europeans were coming into contact with societies, primitive and civilized, around the world (read Voltaire, for instance) and wondered at the almost infinite variety of their "governments".

6. And a last, VERY important, observation: the weakness (among other reasons) of the Roman Empire contributed to its fall at the hand of the German barbarian migration/invasions. This was not an entirely bad thing; it was the interaction of both German law and mores with Latin law and mores that led to the feudal system, and without feudalism the world would not have federalism. During, and after, the Middle Ages, and after the fall of the Roman Empire (and because of that), in fact, the European peoples were experimenting with different forms of government.

I realize I've gotten a little lengthy here; but I've bookmarked the link to the video and will revisit occasionally. Hope you've found my "monograph" informative.

Armagh

Armagh wrote:

Watched it, Larry, and found it well presented. (Still, I'd like to know who produced it, and when). I agreed with most of it, though there are some parts that could bear explication. Here's some thoughts:

1. I have never defined democracy as the rule of the "majority". As you saw in my posts, I refer to any government by the governed as a democracy. (By the way, another good source document is Tocqueville's "Democracy in America"---A Frenchman's view of American democracy. Tocqueville stated here that he would rather live under the yoke of a minority than of a majority.)

I think the passage from the Federalist #10 was taken out of context; I need to reread it. The importance of the Federalist #10 is in Madison's analysis that "the product and price of liberty is faction." The Federalist #10 was about factions; and Madison tried to allay fears of violent factions by stating that "representation would tend to quell the violence of factions". He didn't say that, but that is what he meant. The founders wanted a "representative democracy", that is, voters vote for the people who will make the law; voters do not themselves make the law. So in that sense, there is no "majority rule" as this video seems to imply that democracy is.

2. I have previously researched the meaning of "republic", but found there was no one definition used by all. This video gives as good a definition as any.

3. The history of how the Roman Empire evolved from the Roman Republic is more complex than is stated in the video. One thing left out was that Roman conquests resulted in such a greater land mass and population that the Republic was unable to handle it. The defects of empire. Something else left out is Cataline and Caesar, both of whom catered to the masses. It wasn't just the masses "voting" to become a despotic (on the oriental pattern) empire.

4. This is a fairly trivial observation, but one you might consider: the Roman Republic was based firmly on laws, just as was said in the video: I think it was called "lex Romanae". Once it became an empire, with a god-king, the emperor himself promulgated "regulations" that were vague and variable. "Regulation", in fact, is a word derived from the Latin "rex" or king. By the way, Rome wasn't always a Republic, there was a time when there were kings, then a republic again, then an empire.

5. Another source book is Montesquieu's "The Spirit of the Laws". Montesquieu in the 18th century attempted to trace the development of laws in every society, ancient and "modern", to try to find both commonalities and differences. The Europeans were coming into contact with societies, primitive and civilized, around the world (read Voltaire, for instance) and wondered at the almost infinite variety of their "governments".

6. And a last, VERY important, observation: the weakness (among other reasons) of the Roman Empire contributed to its fall at the hand of the German barbarian migration/invasions. This was not an entirely bad thing; it was the interaction of both German law and mores with Latin law and mores that led to the feudal system, and without feudalism the world would not have federalism. During, and after, the Middle Ages, and after the fall of the Roman Empire (and because of that), in fact, the European peoples were experimenting with different forms of government.

I realize I've gotten a little lengthy here; but I've bookmarked the link to the video and will revisit occasionally. Hope you've found my "monograph" informative.

Watched it, Larry, and found it well presented. (... (show quote)

A footnote to this comment: one wonders if the violent protests and rioting in America now stems from the failure of the Leftist/Liberal/Democrats et al. to gain representation, as per the Federalist #10.

Armagh

Larry the Legend wrote:

I'll be here. Sleep tight.

If you've ever read "The Madison Debates"---and I highly recommend reading it---you will note how much time the founders spent on debating rules governing the "appointment" (that is how they referred to the election of congressmen) of representatives and senators. They knew that the voting of them could be marred and skewed by special interests.

Armagh

Larry the Legend wrote:

Source documents being, in date order, the Declara... (show quote)

Another barrier the founders put in the Constitution, a very important one, maybe the MOST important one, was limiting the misuse and abuse of power by limiting and enumerating the powers GIVEN to Congress (and the other branches) BY THE PEOPLE. This barrier has been broken throughout the last 200 years, probably the most, through amendments, acts, judicial decisions, etc. And for the executive branch, the deliberate release of, and taking of, powers once held by Congress, to and by, the President.