Is Democracy Evil?

genuineoriginal

New member
In the United States of America, there are two dominant parties: Democrats and Republicans.
The Democrats are considered to be Left and promote the ideals of a Democracy.
The Republicans are considered to be Right and promote the ideals of a Republic.

Most of the citizens of the United States of America are not aware that the Constitution guarantees that each State will have a Republican form of government.

U.S. Constitution
Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

The word "Democracy" is not found anywhere in the Constitution.


Pure Democracy is Evil

How many times do you hear elected officials referring to “our democratic form of government” or accusing someone of acting in a way that is “not democratic”. These seemingly innocuous statements are actually quite troubling if you know what “democracy” really is. To put it simply, “democracy” is mob rule. When a lynching occurs, the democratic majority is just exercising its will upon the democratic minority. The trick to surviving in a “democracy” is to always agree with the majority.

I wonder whether most Americans are fully aware of the form of government our Constitution guarantees. Unfortunately, I know too many Americans do not understand the difference between a “republican form of government” and a “democracy”.

The Army Training Manual of 1929 (PM 2000-25) contains the following definitions under the title of Citizenship:*
Democracy:​
Republic:​
A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of " direct " expression. Results in mobocracy.​
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.​
Attitude toward property is communistic — negating property rights.​
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.​
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate; whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.​
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with' fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the " standard form " of government throughout the world.​
*definitions reformatted by genuineoriginal into a table to make it easier to compare them.


Please compare the two definitions and try to answer the question: "Is Democracy Evil?".
 
Last edited:

genuineoriginal

New member

Democracy's Road to Tyranny

Plato, in his Republic, tells us that tyranny arises, as a rule, from democracy. Historically, this process has occurred in three quite different ways. Before describing these several patterns of social change, let us state precisely what we mean by “democracy.”

Pondering the question of “Who should rule,” the democrat gives his answer: “the majority of politically equal citizens, either in person or through their representatives.” In other words, equality and majority rule are the two fundamental principles of democracy. A democracy may be either liberal or illiberal.

How could a democracy, even an initially liberal one, develop into a totalitarian tyranny? As we said in the beginning, there are three avenues of approach, and in each case the evolution would be of an “organic” nature. The tyranny would evolve from the very character of even a liberal democracy because there is, from the beginning on, a worm in the apple: freedom and equality do not mix, they practically exclude each other. Equality doesn’t exist in nature and therefore can be established only by force.

The first road to totalitarian tyranny (though by no means the most frequently used) is the overthrow by force of a liberal democracy through a revolutionary movement, as a rule a party advocating tyranny but unable to win the necessary support in free elections.

The second avenue toward totalitarian tyranny is “free elections.” It can happen that a totalitarian party with great popularity gains such momentum and so many votes that it becomes legally and democratically a country’s master.

Then there is the third way in which a democracy changes into a totalitarian tyranny... a democratic government in which nearly all human affairs would be regulated by a mild, “compassionate” but determined government under which the citizens would practice their pursuit of happiness as “timid animals,” losing all initiative and freedom.

There are two aspects to this large-scale interference: statism and egalitarianism, yet they are intrinsically connected since to regiment society perfectly, you must reduce people to an identical level. Thus, a “classless society” becomes the real aim, and every kind of discrimination must come to an end.

There is, in fact, only either just or unjust discrimination. Yet, egalitarian democracy remains adamant in its totalitarian policy. The popular pastime of modern democracies of punishing the diligent and thrifty, while re warding the lazy, improvident, and unthrifty, is cultivated via the State, fulfilling a demo-egali-tarian program based on a demo-totalitarian ideology.

Democratic tyranny, evolving on the sly as a slow and subtle corruption leading to total State control, is thus the third and by no means rarest road to the most modern form of slavery.


Are the Democrats trying to reduce people to an identical level and eliminate every kind of discrimination?
Are the Democrat policies evil when they punish the diligent and thrifty but reward the lazy, improvident, and unthrifty?
 

Dialogos

Well-known member
To the extent that a "pure" democracy could very likely run roughshod over the civil liberties of the citizenry of the country, it would be a form of evil. As you have alluded to, the United States was not meant to be a direct democracy but a democratic republic. The checks and balances inherent in our constitutional form of government are intended to balance the principle of rule by consent of the governed and the principle of the sanctity of God given natural rights.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
I wouldn't call democracy itself evil. The problem is we live in a sinful world, and in that sinful world we find even good things get so corrupted that they produce evil. In a perfect world where everyone lived by the Golden Rule a democracy would work. On this earth? Every democracy that has ever existed has destroyed itself. The founding fathers created a republic because every democracy in history destroyed itself.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
To the extent that a "pure" democracy could very likely run roughshod over the civil liberties of the citizenry of the country, it would be a form of evil. As you have alluded to, the United States was not meant to be a direct democracy but a democratic republic. The checks and balances inherent in our constitutional form of government are intended to balance the principle of rule by consent of the governed and the principle of the sanctity of God given natural rights.

Have you been paying attention to what has been happening in the USA in the last 10 years?
 

genuineoriginal

New member
In a perfect world where everyone lived by the Golden Rule a democracy would work.
Do you know that democracy has a basic flaw that is a result of giving everyone an equal vote?


"I'm all in favor of the democratic principle that one idiot is as good as one genius, but I draw the line when someone takes the next step and concludes that two idiots are better than one genius."
~As quoted in "Some Szilardisms on War, Fame, Peace", LIFE‎ magazine, Vol. 51, no. 9 (1 September 1961), p. 79

 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
Do you know that democracy has a basic flaw that is a result of giving everyone an equal vote?

"I'm all in favor of the democratic principle that one idiot is as good as one genius, but I draw the line when someone takes the next step and concludes that two idiots are better than one genius."
~As quoted in "Some Szilardisms on War, Fame, Peace", LIFE‎ magazine, Vol. 51, no. 9 (1 September 1961), p. 79


***rolls eyes*** Why do you think I said in a perfect world where everyone lived by the Golden Rule, i.e, did unto others as they would have others do to them, a democracy would work for no one would act with selfish interest and want to control other people. They would think about this carefully before they made any move. In that environment, and that environment alone, could a democracy work. In our sinful world where the vast majority of people could care less about what their actions do to others a democracy is a sure recipe for mob rule.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
***rolls eyes*** Why do you think I said in a perfect world where everyone lived by the Golden Rule, i.e, did unto others as they would have others do to them, a democracy would work for no one would act with selfish interest and want to control other people.
I think it is because you were not aware of the fundamental flaw inherent in democracy and were only concerned with people acting in their own self interest.
They would think about this carefully before they made any move.
No, it is not possible for idiots and unlearned to carefully think through the issues involved.
Giving a single vote to each idiot and each genius has nothing at all to do with following the Golden Rule, but has everything to do with silencing the votes of the few geniuses with the votes from the much greater number of idiots.

In that environment, and that environment alone, could a democracy work.
No, the only environment where democracy could possibly work is where every person had the exact same knowledge, the exact same thoughts, and the exact same abilities as every other person in the democracy.
In other words, once you have more than one person in the democracy, it begins to fail.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
I think it is because you were not aware of the fundamental flaw inherent in democracy and were only concerned with people acting in their own self interest.

No, it is not possible for idiots and unlearned to carefully think through the issues involved.
Giving a single vote to each idiot and each genius has nothing at all to do with following the Golden Rule, but has everything to do with silencing the votes of the few geniuses with the votes from the much greater number of idiots.


No, the only environment where democracy could possibly work is where every person had the exact same knowledge, the exact same thoughts, and the exact same abilities as every other person in the democracy.
In other words, once you have more than one person in the democracy, it begins to fail.

I just have to shake my head. How is it that you do not understand that how people behave on this earth is a result of everyone here having a fallen spiritual nature. Jesus said that the Golden Rule is the complete expression of the "law and the prophets". In that same sermon He said be ye therefore perfect even as your father in heaven is perfect. Now, if everyone lived as Jesus lived and thought as Jesus did, do you think they would be willing to screw each other over?

You also ignore the rest of what I have said. I said, here on this earth where the vast majority of people live in rebellion against God, i.e. live in sin, a democracy is a sure recipe for disaster. Your ability to see beyond the present and imagine a different scenario seems to be missing. I agreed with you that right now a democracy is unworkable. It's a sure recipe for disaster, but in a society in which everyone lived by the principles of God's kingdom it would work for people wouldn't be out to screw over their neighbor to gain power for that is not what they would want done to them. It seems that you are unable to even imagine such a place.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
How is it that you do not understand that how people behave on this earth is a result of everyone here having a fallen spiritual nature.
I don't believe every nonbiblical doctrines of men that are taught in mainstream churches, I believe the whole testimony of the Bible.
The heretic Augustine of Hippo introduced the concept of "Original Sin" to Christianity, but he got it from Manichæism, not from any Christian teachings.
Calvinism modified "Original Sin" to "Total Depravity", which is even farther from what the Bible teaches.

The only way to truly understand the Bible is to approach it as an Open Theist, not as a Federalist or a Papist.
Jesus said that the Golden Rule is the complete expression of the "law and the prophets". In that same sermon He said be ye therefore perfect even as your father in heaven is perfect. Now, if everyone lived as Jesus lived and thought as Jesus did, do you think they would be willing to screw each other over?
A well-meaning idiot can cause a lot of problems without any desire to screw another over.
It comes from being unlearned and ignorant, not from being evil.

You also ignore the rest of what I have said.
I didn't quote the rest of what you posted, but that doesn't mean I ignored it.
I evaluated it and determined that it wasn't worth addressing.

I said, here on this earth where the vast majority of people live in rebellion against God, i.e. live in sin, a democracy is a sure recipe for disaster.
You said that in response to my post that said the fundamental flaw in democracy is that there are more idiots than geniuses.
Your response indicated that you didn't care that there were more idiots voting than geniuses, but that you were only concerned with more evil people voting than good.

Your ability to see beyond the present and imagine a different scenario seems to be missing. I agreed with you that right now a democracy is unworkable. It's a sure recipe for disaster, but in a society in which everyone lived by the principles of God's kingdom it would work for people wouldn't be out to screw over their neighbor to gain power for that is not what they would want done to them. It seems that you are unable to even imagine such a place.
au contraire mon frère.
I am able to imagine such a place where only the pure at heart are in a society run as a pure democracy, and I can also see how the society would devolve into chaos because the unlearned and ignorant would outvote the learned and wise.
 

ffreeloader

Well-known member
I don't believe every nonbiblical doctrines of men that are taught in mainstream churches, I believe the whole testimony of the Bible.
The heretic Augustine of Hippo introduced the concept of "Original Sin" to Christianity, but he got it from Manichæism, not from any Christian teachings.
Calvinism modified "Original Sin" to "Total Depravity", which is even farther from what the Bible teaches.

The only way to truly understand the Bible is to approach it as an Open Theist, not as a Federalist or a Papist.

A well-meaning idiot can cause a lot of problems without any desire to screw another over.
It comes from being unlearned and ignorant, not from being evil.


I didn't quote the rest of what you posted, but that doesn't mean I ignored it.
I evaluated it and determined that it wasn't worth addressing.


You said that in response to my post that said the fundamental flaw in democracy is that there are more idiots than geniuses.
Your response indicated that you didn't care that there were more idiots voting than geniuses, but that you were only concerned with more evil people voting than good.


au contraire mon frère.
I am able to imagine such a place where only the pure at heart are in a society run as a pure democracy, and I can also see how the society would devolve into chaos because the unlearned and ignorant would outvote the learned and wise.

With your rejection of the concept of sin and a fallen nature you and I have no common point of understanding on this issue. Our underlying paradigms are in sharp conflict. I'll stick with scripture every time.
Psalm 51:5[SIZE=+1] [/SIZE]Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Romans 3: [SIZE=+1]23[/SIZE] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
[SIZE=+1]24[/SIZE] Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
[SIZE=+1]25[/SIZE] Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

There is nothing in us in need of redemption if there is no sin. If all that is wrong with humanity is differences in IQ the entire Bible is a lie for it tells a different story from beginning to end.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
With your rejection of the concept of sin
I do not reject the concept of sin.
The Bible has a lot of verses that speak about sin.
and a fallen nature
The Bible has a very few verses that have been twisted into the concept that mankind is born with a fallen nature, but that concept is not supported by the whole testimony of scripture.
you and I have no common point of understanding on this issue.
I can understand where you are coming from, but you are claiming that you cannot understand my side of it.
Our underlying paradigms are in sharp conflict.
The underlying paradigms would be meaningful IF this was in the Religion forum instead of the Politics forum.
I'll stick with scripture every time.
I wish you would, then you wouldn't believe that mankind was born with a fallen nature.
There is nothing in us in need of redemption if there is no sin.
There is sin and we do need a Redeemer.
The issue you are stuck on is whether the free-will that God gave us is sufficient to allow us to repent or if God made us horribly broken and incapable of obeying Him when He tells us to repent.
If all that is wrong with humanity is differences in IQ the entire Bible is a lie for it tells a different story from beginning to end.
You are approaching this as if the only thing wrong with democracy is that there are wicked people in the world.

You keep ignoring the basic math that points out the inherent flaw in democracy.

It only takes the vote of one person that doesn't know the best course of action to neutralize the vote of one person that does know.
Even if you remove the greed and avarice of the wicked, you are still left with that flaw that would prevent the society from following the best course of action.

When you add the greed and avarice of the wicked (what you are focused on) on top of that flaw (that I am pointing out), you end up with democracy being one of the most evil forms of government imaginable.
 
Top