4 ms·

>>Republics are still democracies, no, Constitutional Republic differ in one HUGE way, they disallow the majority some power. Every one should reject the con

>>Republics are still democracies, no, Constitutional Republic differ in one HUGE way, they disallow the majority some power. Every one should reject the concept of Majority Rules. That is a TERRIBLE way to organize society and leads to all manner of abuse. Majority power needs to be check with natural rights that can never be violated for any reason. >>A system of government that is beholden to the vote of the people This is an incorrect statement if you are talking about the Federalist system of government created by the founder of the US. it is much more complex by design than a simple majoritarian democracy. People with a similar world view as yours have been working for 100's of years to dismantle the republic and replace it with a more majoritarian system, leading to all kinds of problems, including the massive division we see in the nation today. >There would be nothing wrong or unnatural about everyone deciding property rights no longer exist and voting to seize the means of production. We make our own rights. There would be lots wrong and immoral in doing that, you seem to believe in the concept of "life. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" well that is based in the principle of Self-ownership, one can not own themselves without the ability to trade the product of their own body freely with others. "Collective" ownership of "means of production" means the collective also owns the output of the labor, and in effect owns you the individual, you cease to be a single person, and become "one of us"

colinmhayes 4y ago
You're really getting caught up in semantics here. Your read on what democracy means is just leading you to talk past me. A democracy is a system of government where most adults can vote. That's it. A Constitutional Republic is a type of democracy. And the fact that we aren't a direct democracy doesn't change the fact that rights are not natural. Take anarchy. What rights do people have? None. Because there are no natural rights, only the legal ones we create for ourselves. In our system our rights stem from the will of the people. Not the hand of god. Nor the universe. If the people elect a government on the basis of granting or removing rights that's what the government will do.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  it is not semantics, it is Philosophy and the foundation of ethics If there are no natural rights, then it would not be unethical for a government to infringe upon those rights, Thus says a China or North Korea or Russia are perfectly ethical governments because the government has choose their citizens do not have X rights and that is in their authority to do has a government. Instead the founding principle is "we hold these truths to be self evident" this is a foundational principle, and Philosophy of natural rights. Rights that no ethical government can violate even if the will of the people was to "agree" to the infringement. Authoritarianism is the belief that governments are the all powerful, and people are subservient to the government, and government bestowed up on the citizens their rights, I reject Authoritarianism completely and with out reservation Pointing out that government can be instituted that would infringe on natural rights is not proof that natural rights are non-existent
- notch656a 4y ago
  Anarchy means when you defend your rights, the people you're fighting against, or even alongside, don't have a legitimate monopoly on violence. To some that thought may be exhilarating, to others that may be terrifying.

colinmhayes 4y ago

You're really getting caught up in semantics here. Your read on what democracy means is just leading you to talk past me. A democracy is a system of government where most adults can vote. That's it. A Constitutional Republic is a type of democracy. And the fact that we aren't a direct democracy doesn't change the fact that rights are not natural. Take anarchy. What rights do people have? None. Because there are no natural rights, only the legal ones we create for ourselves. In our system our rights stem from the will of the people. Not the hand of god. Nor the universe. If the people elect a government on the basis of granting or removing rights that's what the government will do.

phpisthebest 4y ago
it is not semantics, it is Philosophy and the foundation of ethics If there are no natural rights, then it would not be unethical for a government to infringe upon those rights, Thus says a China or North Korea or Russia are perfectly ethical governments because the government has choose their citizens do not have X rights and that is in their authority to do has a government. Instead the founding principle is "we hold these truths to be self evident" this is a foundational principle, and Philosophy of natural rights. Rights that no ethical government can violate even if the will of the people was to "agree" to the infringement. Authoritarianism is the belief that governments are the all powerful, and people are subservient to the government, and government bestowed up on the citizens their rights, I reject Authoritarianism completely and with out reservation Pointing out that government can be instituted that would infringe on natural rights is not proof that natural rights are non-existent
notch656a 4y ago
Anarchy means when you defend your rights, the people you're fighting against, or even alongside, don't have a legitimate monopoly on violence. To some that thought may be exhilarating, to others that may be terrifying.