Saturday, June 18, 2011

The Progressive

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservatism
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


"Sounds like you have a problem with democracy." The preceding statement was of course directed at me. It was made by a progressive, one who obviously believes democracy is the ideal. The utopia. The remark was made in response to this comment by me,
There you go again. I am for individualism and liberty.

Remember, the constitution was framed with this in mind...

...to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority...

Hence a nation of laws.

What progressives advocate is increasing influence and control by the state. Connect the dots and eventually you have an obvious picture.

The exchange got me thinking once again about democracy as opposed to our representative {republic} form of government. As is usually the case I referred to that book of concept definitions, the dictionary.
democracy a) government by the people; esp : rule of the majority

republic a) a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

Reference: Websters New Collegiate Dictionarry

In the abstract no one is likely to have a problem with democracy and it's one person one vote majority rule concept. However, in the practical sense everyone should have a problem with democracy.

It is clear democracy, if realized in its conceptual purity, would lead to mob rule. A simple 50% plus one would win the day. Every time. Thus potentially creating a huge minority whose rights would not matter.

Our representative democracy, or republic, with its constitutionally protected rights was designed to insures that a 49.9% minority, or a .05% minority, could not have their rights trampled on.

The degree to which our elected representatives and government officials adhere to the Constitution and its amendments will determine to what degree, and for how long, our nation will continue to enjoy the rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

Progressive talk a lot about democracy as they refer to conservatives as Reich-wingers, Republiscums, delusional, and an assortment of other descriptive adjectives. That's okay as all is fair game in politics.

It makes one wonder however just what it is they want to accomplish with their consistent push to concentrate more power in the state and create ever more regulatory burdens. t certainly can't be liberty.

But as long as we have democracy...

6 comments:

  1. The "democracy' advocated by leftists (progressives) is one in which the rights of the people to be protected from the ravages of the ruling class are stripped away.

    This is why the Left has such strong views on censorship: they want the government (not the people) to decide what is fair in the "Fairness Doctrine", and their view on "Citizens United" is that the government should be able to criminalize dissent against it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The object of the Founders in establishing the Constitution was not only to protect the people from the government, but also to protect the people from the rest of the people.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Les,
    You confine my use of the term democracy to its narrowest of all possible applications. Mob rule. We have a Bill of Rights and rule of law, remember?

    If I were to define your idea of a republic as narrow as this, it would be plutocratic dictatorship. If I may, I’d provide some context of our exchange.

    *********
    ----
    DD:
    We now have Government Inc., thanks to Big Money Inc. buying up our Republican Inc. and Democratic Inc. Parties.

    When will the burdens and austerity of USA Inc. be enough to activate the public? Perhaps we see it beginning in Wisconsin. When we have masses of people with the same message in every capitol on the same day, then we will have the movement and momentum to surge for democracy.
    ----
    RN:
    You all already have a base right here to form your own...

    "Peoples Party of the United Communist States of the World"

    I'd say go for it. It just might fail!

    -----
    DD:
    Les,
    There's a vast difference between a communist party and one dedicated to democracy. We need the latter, as both major parties, albeit one more than the other, now work for their Big Money string pullers.

    Sounds like you have a problem with democracy.
    ----
    RN:
    Dave --- There you go again. I am for individualism and liberty.

    Remember, the constitution was framed with this in mind...

    ...to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority...

    Hence a nation of laws.

    What progressive advocate is increasing influence and control by the state. Connect the dots and eventually you have an obvious picture.

    By the way Bush 2 was just a different flavor of statism and state control.

    Put Em together and you have... BHO.
    ----
    DD:

    There you go again with the red-baiting.

    Do you assume I oppose liberty? I am a firearm-owning, tax-paying civil libertarian.

    What tyranny of the majority? We live in nation of the golden rulers. Those with the gold make the rules. It is a tyranny by the economic elites. Since money is free speech and corporations are persons, they do all the talking.
    This is antithetical to democracy. There’s no comparable political clout for 99% of the American people.

    Neither party advocates for the majority while they fall to their knees before Big Money. (Is this what a Republic is? Does the “supreme power reside in a body of citizens entitled to vote” when their only choice is one of two corporate bought politicians? Is this conducive to freedom and civil liberties, let alone even representation for the people?)

    Free speech and non-living “personhood” should not be defined by money poured into the peoples’ political process. This is the change our democracy needs to survive.

    Again, you seem to shun democracy in favor of the golden rulers.

    Can you tell me I’m wrong here?
    -----

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dave - Thanks for filling in the blanks, somehow I knew you would.

    Philosophically and conceptually I am right. You know it and so do many others.

    But thanks for visiting.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, Les, you are philosophically and conceptually right. However, I am right in the actuality of the real "fact based reality" scorned by the radical Right and Bushies.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dave - Many of the radical righties and some of the Bushie's don't get a whole bunch of stuff.

    It is quite objective, at least in my judgement, to conclude that if I am philosophically and conceptually correct then the path to a reasoned and logically consistent conclusion is also correct.

    I don't recall ever giving Bush, or the radical right many kudos. Just as give few kudos to the radical progressives.

    As an independent conservative I tend to lean right Libertarian. However, I do occasionally find the middle ground comfortable.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.