Is Democracy naturally CORRUPT?

[LaurieAG]

For the issue of corruptability, the form of government isn't as important as the type of economy. As pointed out earlier, democracy only exists in the form of a republic. Any type of government under a economic system that allows for personal gain of its leaders is naturally corrupt. Humans are opportunists, and if the system allows for clear opportunities at the cost of another human, those opportunities will be taken.

 

Good point Inter,

 

That's probably why Thomas Jefferson said that the constitution was to prevent the politicians/etc from becoming tyrants.

 

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Constitutions

 

"[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. ME 2:178

[Kriminal99]

When I was young I thought up Ratiocracy. Clearly not the same as Ideocracy, but still just one of many possible utopies.

 

And who chooses the executors of each idea? Many political parties start out as exactly what you say, card holding members elect the management of the party and its representative candidates, voters' preference may change the order of candidates in the list. Ends up there's not much difference in practice, the trouble is just that the executors are prone to the shortcomings you outline.

 

The author of the belief set or a political party who supports it whichever. I guess the difference I am implying is that people would vote on the belief sets directly instead of people and the people would be punished for deviating from the belief set they represent. Rather than voting on a person who you think "can do the job right" and then having no control or way to predict what he actually ends up doing.

 

There would perhaps be a more general one for choosing personnel, and then perhaps smaller ones for specific issues that only people who were interested and educated would vote on. Nothing would force them to be educated, it would just be a choice between really advanced viewpoints on the subject. There wouldn't be a box for a specious arguments made of unconnected metaphors.

[Qfwfq]

The word here is "republic" and as all school children are taught it simply means a government where the people elect their representatives to it. The original roots of the word no longer have anything to do with the modern meaning of the word.

What era do you mean by modern? Do you include the 20th century? As C1ay points out, if you bring in the US constitution you must include 1776; see the end of point 2 of democracy and republic in Webster's 1913 dictionary. The basic meaning of republic is "not monarchy" and the only modern aspect is universal suffrage.

 

That's probably why Thomas Jefferson said that the constitution was to prevent the politicians/etc from becoming tyrants.

I don't find that quote of Jefferson to mean quite what Inter said, with which I agree more than those words of Jefferson. Anyway I don't find anything in the US constitution that explicitly addresses corruption; as in most representative democracies, it's up to law (especially for bureaucrats) as well as the voters (by holding bad apples politically responsible).

 

I guess the difference I am implying is that people would vote on the belief sets directly instead of people and the people would be punished for deviating from the belief set they represent. Rather than voting on a person who you think "can do the job right" and then having no control or way to predict what he actually ends up doing.

Well, this would be a point... if it were a practically definable thing. It isn't, and this is probably the reason why my country's constitution explicitly states that MPs have full discretion during their mandate.

[C1ay]

In regards to the U.S. Constitution I would recommend reading Federalist Papers 37-51, The Republican Form of Government, for insight into the meaning of republican principles that the framers had in mind in drafting the Constitution. You will not find such detail of what "republican" meant to them in any dictionary.

 

P.S. Q

Our Constitution was adopted in 1787. It was the Declaration of Independence that was signed in 1776....

[Qfwfq]

:phones: You're right! 1787... or a few years before that when they drafted it up and signed it.

 

Although I think it was at least partly the same guys behind both things perhaps?

[Mike C]

A republican government is mandated for each state. No state could make their governor the dictator of the state or abolish their legislature. Invasions of and/or domestic violence within a state would be addressed by the federal government. During the Civil War states provided regiments of volunteers to the federal government to fight a rebellion. The National Guard can be federalized as in the Iraq War as 40% of U.S. troops there are National Guard or Reserves. States have no control once federalization takes place.

 

The word here is "republic" and as all school children are taught it simply means a government where the people elect their representatives to it. The original roots of the word no longer have anything to do with the modern meaning of the word.

 

Although I believe in the Constitution (CN) as our highest law, I also said 'with all the Amendments'.

Our CN evolved with the additional Amendments.

 

These Amensments places ALL the people on an equal basis.

 

So, using the current differences between the parties and there are differences, republicans do NOT honor the citizen issues as the Democrats do.

Anybody that is aware of the party loyalties and the support organizations should know those differences now in our current era.

 

The democrats get their support from the citizens mostly.

 

On the other hand, the republicans get their support primarily from the wealthy conservatives and the religious institutions.

 

So these two differences fit the latest Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Those dictionary meanings change also with the times.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

The only definitions that matter are the ones the writers used when they wrote the Constitution. Trying to use new meanings or word usages is simply ignoring the history of the document.

 

Read my reply to Freddy. Evolution happens, even in the word.

 

Mike C

[Qfwfq]

The main definition in there seems to be:

If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character. According to the constitution of every State in the Union, some or other of the officers of government are appointed indirectly only by the people. According to most of them, the chief magistrate himself is so appointed. And according to one, this mode of appointment is extended to one of the co-ordinate branches of the legislature. According to all the constitutions, also, the tenure of the highest offices is extended to a definite period, and in many instances, both within the legislative and executive departments, to a period of years. According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behavior.

Which basically requires it to be a democracy and supposes, although doesn't seem to require, it to be a representative one. It further specifies "the great body of the people" as opposed to a very small proportion of the population as in some democracies, or to "a favored class of it".

 

Now what did he mean by a favoured class? Even in today's republics adult citizens have the right to vote, not quite all people who are resident, back in those days suffrage was a lot less universal. Presumably he meant an aristocracy. There was however the distinction between free men, slaves and also women couldn't vote. All in all, I don't see a tremendous difference. The American revolution, like others in the same times, was against monarchy and the privileges of aristocracy, and driven mostly by the bourgeoisie.

 

Napoleon, for instance, overran the Republica Veneta which was controlled by the nobility, and set up two new republics in the Pò valley, but didn't take over the tiny Republica di San Marino despite it's reluctance to break alliance with the Papal State. "It's a model republic!", he exclaimed, and made agreements without requiring it to switch sides.

[Qfwfq]

So, using the current differences between the parties and there are differences.......

 

............................................................

We're not here for a partisan debate about US politics. Especially one based on word games that miss the point of the actual meaning. And also, of course there are differences between parties, that's obvious.

[C1ay]

Read my reply to Freddy. Evolution happens, even in the word.

 

Mike C

 

I'd advise that you not take up law then. Law is steadfast. The law says what it means and it means what it says. You cannot change the law by merely editing the dictionary.

[Freddy]

Just one point about the US Constitution. It was written in 1787 and the ninth state ratified it in June of 1788 making it the supreme law of the land. It did not take effect as a government until March 1789. The 26 Amendments are all part of the document and are all equally in force.

[Mike C]

I'd advise that you not take up law then. Law is steadfast. The law says what it means and it means what it says. You cannot change the law by merely editing the dictionary.

 

Law is nothing but opinion. Another interpretation of law is 'the gun and the cannon'.

You can also classify the popes and Islam as the law.

The 1st 3 commandments in the bible are outlawed by our Constitution (CN).

The popes crucifix is outlawed by our Constitution.

Yet the popes get more respect than our CN.

 

The Supreme Court is split among political issues. This proves that 'law' is nothing but an opinion.

 

Mike C

[C1ay]

"Better to be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Samuel Clemmens (aka Mark Twain).

[charles brough]

I got my information from my latest Websters Desk dictionary (1998) that described the roots briefly and concisely.

My earlier Websters (1987) was kind of confusing but still described our government more accurately as a democracy although the republic version was also accurately portrayed.

My American College dictionary (1967) was confusing.

 

If we look at the way our governments function today here in the US. The representative parties are described accurately as I said.

The republican party supports corruption (McCain/Feingold Bill) that was a step in the right direction to ban 'soft money' that did not have to be accounted for. Mike C

 

All that matters is what the words mean to people now, and most reasonable people would agree that the Democratic Party gains most support from the lower middle and low income classes while the Republican Pary gets support from the upper middle and upper economic classes. In fact, it is so obvious that I thought we were discussing something here a bit more profound! Most people in the form can perhaps see that whether "democracy" or "the free market system" works well or not has a lot to do with the diligence, discipline, honesty, dedication---or lack of it---in the public itself.

 

My point is that publics change, that civilizations rise and fall, and that they fall not because "democracy" or "capitalism" is no good but because people become spoiled, soft, obese, selfish, stressed out and filled with deeply buried hostility.

[Mike C]

All that matters is what the words mean to people now, and most reasonable people would agree that the Democratic Party gains most support from the lower middle and low income classes while the Republican Pary gets support from the upper middle and upper economic classes. In fact, it is so obvious that I thought we were discussing something here a bit more profound! Most people in the form can perhaps see that whether "democracy" or "the free market system" works well or not has a lot to do with the diligence, discipline, honesty, dedication---or lack of it---in the public itself.

 

My point is that publics change, that civilizations rise and fall, and that they fall not because "democracy" or "capitalism" is no good but because people become spoiled, soft, obese, selfish, stressed out and filled with deeply buried hostility.

 

I don't know why the people are always accused of being the problem.

The blame should be pointed to the people at the top that lead them in that direction.

Hamburgers and hot dogs are the problems for obesity.

Automobiles and machines are the problems for 'lack of exercize'.

 

You cannot blame the people for that.

 

Mikr C

[C1ay]

I don't know why the people are always accused of being the problem.

The blame should be pointed to the people at the top that lead them in that direction.

Hamburgers and hot dogs are the problems for obesity.

Automobiles and machines are the problems for 'lack of exercize'.

 

You cannot blame the people for that.

 

Mikr C

 

Yes you can. The hamburgers and hot dogs do not shove themselves down the peoples throats. Those people that eat fattening foods have made their own choice to do so.

 

Automobiles and machines do not hi jack people and take their labor away from them. Those people that use labor saving devices make a concious decision to do so.

 

Would you also argue that it was the gun that killed someone and not the person that pulled the trigger?

[Mike C]

Yes you can. The hamburgers and hot dogs do not shove themselves down the peoples throats. Those people that eat fattening foods have made their own choice to do so.

 

Automobiles and machines do not hi jack people and take their labor away from them. Those people that use labor saving devices make a concious decision to do so.

 

Would you also argue that it was the gun that killed someone and not the person that pulled the trigger?

 

I have nothing against the gun since it is the 'great equalizer' for people as a 'defensive' weapon. In the US, people do need to protect their homes fron the criminal elements.

 

However, the gun and the cannon were used offensively to spread the popes christianity around the world. The popes christianity is thw wrong kind.

 

I 'strictly' endorse the US Constitutional version of Christianity.

 

Mike C