https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/mike-lee-not-a-democracy-republican-trump-authoritarian.html#comments

blech!

Our system is a representative form of government; those who wish to be divisive make LOUD OBJECTIONS to the use of the term (Republic or Democracy) they have a problem with.

This is little more than a pissing contest, and I expect Mike Lee knows it.

In previous decades, one of the hue & cries of the Right was to eliminate the IRS. While that 'appeals' to the rightists, it's actually little more than pandering - window dressing to the likes of the Bundy's et al.

Unless we radically change our tax basis by eliminating income taxes we must have a department / organization to collect & credit taxes, enforce against fraud; the name only matters at the margin...

I for one don't see that happening, it would necessitate a heavily regressive sales or VAT to fund government.

some people just don't like being governed at all (what about governing others?), Except when it comes to Abortion, SSM, Voting suppression, on & on; then they want the stick/hammer of laws to represent their ideas & ideals.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2021 10:12PM by GNPE.

Can’t they just print more money?

When this country was founded, you had to be wealthy, male, and white to vote. Would you call that democracy?

It isn't about taxation this time. It's about demographics. Older white people are anxious about becoming a minority, or rather a plurality, and losing their historical dominance.

There are other factors at play too, like profound economic setbacks and the capitalization of the political process, and these must be addressed. But the insurrectionists and their fellow travelers are perfectly happy to see their boy financed by the very elite that in theory they disfavor.

Want to know the truth? Take a look at the people who invaded the Capitol.

LW

I respectfully suggest U read ML's remarks in full to glean what he said about property rights ( closely related to taxation & the supposed 'redistribution of property (wealth)'

I've read what he said. The problem is that his respect for property rights is highly distorted. Lee doesn't like eminent domain but has no problem with Trump's seizure of people's land to build the wall. Lee doesn't want to redistribute wealth but he supported a massive tax cut that represents a transfer of wealth to older Americans at the expense of future taxpayers. In both cases the claims to fiscal discipline are a smokescreen (that perhaps he doesn't recognize).

The same is true of the other Kool-Aid drinkers. Fiscal conservatism means giving "me" more money; law and order means keeping minorities in check, not enforcing the law against right-wing lawbreakers. Again and again we see principled rhetoric applied in an unprincipled way.

So if we dispense with the purported principles and look at who the movement comprises, it's pretty clear what's going on. Again, what percentage of the Capitol thugs were minorities? I submit that that observation tells us more about the Trumpians' motivation than their words do.

A-bleeping-men.

Another "principle" - businesses should be left alone, and let the market decide, free of government interference, unless your ox gets gored by having all his social media accounts get locked. Then it is censorship, and not just business - specifically, terms of service violation (contract law). Government needs to "defend the First Amendment".

Nobody batted an eye when ISIS had their accounts blocked.

I don’t like democracy. It can turn into mob rule too easy. I prefer a republic based on the rule of law that protects the minority.

Rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don’t like democracy. It can turn into mob
> rule too easy. I prefer a republic based on the
> rule of law that protects the minority.

Please support your fears / concerns about 'mob rule' with examples when initiated - invoked by a democratic majority.

the closest I can think of was the white supremacist 'White Power' mobs in the south who were supported if not led by the likes of the KKK.
Remember how well the rights of the black Africans were protected?

I would be the last individual to claim that there are Always sufficient safeguards against mob rule, but what's been the history of recent history / events?

For reference, I'm thinking of North America & most of Europe;
there are 'lessons' to be learned from China and some south american countries & fiefdoms

There are lots of examples of what Toqueville called the "tyranny of the majority," including Germany and Japan before World War Two as well as in Argentina and many other countries. In the US, slavery is an apposite example.

As for constraints on democracy, two sorts come to mind immediately. The first is the ways in which the US embodies really bad ideas, many of which arose from the compromises with the slave states back when the constitution was formed. There was the 3/5 rule, then the states rights provisions of the Bill of Rights and finally the electoral college--all of which were intended to enable a minority of states to stop the majority from prohibiting enslavement.

The US made some progress towards a truer democracy with the Civil War and the post-war amendments, which give the federal government the power to address the legacy of slavery. But the evolution is far from complete; the electoral college and some other institutions look increasingly atavistic.

The other category of limits--and where I think Rubicon is correct--is republican or constitutional rules designed to protect democracy from itself. Pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. When that happens--when the Nazis decide that Jews, gays, Slavs, and Romani are subhuman and hence deserve no protection--it's only a matter of time before new groups of victims are carved out of the citizenry. That is a point that those who would treat minorities badly should bear in mind, for one day they too may find themselves on the wrong side of the line.

So it's good that the US is a republic with a separation of powers, checks and balances, and a Bill of Rights restricting the ability of the federal and other governments to impose subordinate status on minorities. Those are critical both to keeping most of the American people from (severely) mistreating disadvantaged groups and to ensuring that the system survives populist surges.

A democracy without curbs lasts only one or two elections before the majority abrogates the rules and embraces totalitarianism. It's great that the United States has such curbs. Now, however, it's time to eliminate those other institutions that are aimed not at preserving an even playing field but at bolstering the power of those states/regions/peoples who want to treat other groups as lesser humans. The United States is still some ways from completing the transformation from a haven of slavery into a true republican democracy.

The French Revolution was a perfect example of tyranny from the mob.

Why not a democracy with minority protections? Example: A majority wants an equal tax for all except the tax would be double for a certain racial group. The tax would be valid as far as it being equal for all but invalid as far as a it being double for a certain racial group. Think of a democracy limited by the Bill of Rights plus the 13th and 14th Amendment. Oh yeah, we would need to add the Equal Rights Amendment to the aforementioned, but otherwise the majority rules.

As I wrote immediately above, that is the system that presently exists. I would add, though, that a constitution is worth no more than the paper it is written on unless there is a separation of powers such that different branches insist on keeping the constitutional restraints in place.

That's why the Trumpian insurrection--meaning everything from 2017 until a month ago, not the QAnon insurrection of last week--was so dangerous. If the president had succeeded in abolishing the separation of powers, he could have ignored the constitution altogether and ruled as a dictator.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the president had succeeded in abolishing the
> separation of powers, he could have ignored the
> constitution altogether and ruled as a dictator.
===============================

Courts saved lemmings from themselves this time.
- But it's a thin wire fence

Step further back and it seems the Age of Reason vs. what was before. And not only here.

Care to hazard a guess as to what's next decade? All things considered.

The hypocrisy is that the Trumpists first attacked democracy claiming the election was rigged, then they turned around and attacked the Electoral College process--the decidedly NON democratic process for selecting the president. They interrupted the process which is their only chance to override the democratic election. As soon as congress reconvened, they elected Joe Biden, over the objections of a few members of congress. They were living examples of the mob rule they claim to be against.

Take for example the votes for presidential candidates;

More people usually vote for the Democratic candidate, but the outcome is nearly always skewed by the Electoral process, gerrymandering, and voter suppression.

Make No Mistake: People who are against a democratic form of governing most often favor, overtly or covertly, minority rule.

Democracy: The worst form of government, except for all the others?

(I cribbed this from the man who when a lady told him, "If I were your wife, I would give you a cup of poison!", responded, "If I were your husband, I would drink it!")


I remain a centrist anarch... not an anarchist, but an anarch, which I define as:

Anarch [noun]: one who rules with no rules except those defined by balanced equations. Except on Tuesdays.

So, ('mr.') Mike Lee:

what would U substitute for democracy (as if it truly exists in the U.S.)?

specific details, Please

If you do not think racially, you will discover that people are much more alike than they are different.

I remember when I first heard the phrase "stick to your own kind" and not fully understanding what it meant.

What was my "kind?" Why was I supposed to "stick" to it? Why were other people not my "kind?"

One of the most astonishing things about Christianity in America is how easily it was adapted to justify slavery and how morality and racism became intertwined. Relationships between people of different "races" became "indecent" and "immoral." Why?

We know now that these attitudes were deliberately manufactured in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. Racism is not natural. Parents have to teach it to their children. Once taught, however, it becomes a very difficult habit to break.

Remember the "Planet Of The Apes" movies? That's how the racists think. They see themselves as the only "humans" and everyone else as the "apes." They can't see the humanity and similar human traits in others simply because they look (slightly in reality) different.

Here's the infamous Reconstruction Era SC State Legislature scene from D.W. Griffith's "Birth Of A Nation:"

https://youtu.be/GBzDH-Vwzy4

Or, in other words...

"I don't want animals or subhuman savages to have any power or influence over me, so fascism is preferable to democracy if democracy cannot be restricted."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2021 08:51AM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Racism is not natural.
> Parents have to teach it to their children.
===============================

What if tribalism is biological -- and this proclivity must be taught out of us by wise parents?

Humans are tribal animals.
We're wired to follow a leader and work in groups roughly the size of a spots team. And then cheer on "our" sports team.
Just evolutionary biology -- working cooperatively in groups enhanced survival through aeons.
With limited resources and competing tribes, identifying and rejecting "out-tribe" became a part of the wiring.
We see it today in rival teams -- respective fans must be separated.

One introspection:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285234086_The_Neurology_of_Tribalism_A_Conceptual_Analysis

But we cannot begin to teach it out of ourselves if we do not even see that it's already in the equipment.
Cannot supersede or fix what we don't even see.

Consider the social cross-section:
which segment appears the most racist? Which the less so?
Does this tendency correlate with anything in particular?


A working definition of humanity is being able, at long last, to see the "self" in the "other." Eventually this extends to all forms of life

A lot of wars have been fought by people who all look just like each other.

As peoples learn to hate each other, they find distinguishing characteristics that they previously hadn't noticed. Next thing you know, you have "races."

Does *this* look like a photo of someone who supports democracy?

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/10/29/sen-mike-lee-says-donald/

He's a member of an autocratic authoritarian 'church' -
- his ideal form of governance.

Think of the benefits, of how many decisions you will be liberated from having to make, under such an idyllic arrangement.



Ignorance is strength

I like what Senator Lee said, liberty, peace, and prosperity, are more important than democracy. We need to teach the rising generation what these words actually mean, there are too many people who believe that liberty is freedom from want. It's getting access to our neighbors stuff, that's what Roosevelt taught the nation to do with his new deal nonsense.

The only thing I'd add to Senator Lee's statement is that it's important for government foster and find ways to create an equality of opportunity for everyone. Every child should be encouraged and shown the amazing possibilities that they can achieve. And be assisted with a plan of how to get there.

The stupid, it burns!

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like what Senator Lee said, liberty, peace, and
> prosperity, are more important than democracy. We
> need to teach the rising generation what these
> words actually mean, there are too many people who
> believe that liberty is freedom from want. It's
> getting access to our neighbors stuff, that's what
> Roosevelt taught the nation to do with his new
> deal nonsense.

Name a book on FDR or the New Deal that you have read. Even a book with pictures.

We'll wait.


--------------
> The only thing I'd add to Senator Lee's statement
> is that it's important for government foster and
> find ways to create an equality of opportunity for
> everyone. Every child should be encouraged and
> shown the amazing possibilities that they can
> achieve. And be assisted with a plan of how to get
> there.

I'll bet a dollar you don't see how this paragraph and your previous one contradict each other. Put simply, how do you guarantee each kid an equal opportunity if the opportunities are monopolized by the rich and powerful?

Again, we'll wait. But we won't hold our breath.

He doesn't need to have read a book NERD! An honest person, in one afternoon, can figure out that DEFICIT SPENDING is STEALING. Whatchu gonna do? Take from the rich and give to the poor? You might as well burn that money honey.

I remember an interview a while back from the RT Russian state television network. Their senior reporter (can't remember her name) was asking a UN diplomat about the war in Syria and the current situation at the time. The UN envoy was talking about finding ways to end the conflict, free elections, etc. The RT reporter seemed not to understand. She asked him something to the effect of "but isn't more important to be safe, have food and shelter and so forth than worry about who is in control or who is running the government?"

Authoritarian regimes all over the planet are having a field day with the U.S. Capitol Insurrection and the far right domestic terrorism situation. "See, we told you! You don't need democracy. It doesn't work. It's crazy. You don't need a say. We know what's best. We'll run things to make sure everything is OK -- our way."

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Yeah, it wasn't long ago that magaRomney posted a message saying that the Anglo-Saxon peoples should run the United States with violence against others because that's what they did historically.

Racial dominance + violence = ?

It's hard to believe that stuff has any place in the politics of an "advanced" country.

Only some crazy white nationalist, Nazi, or KKK person is going to say things like that openly nowadays.

I remember arguing with a Nazi in college who claimed white Europeans were superior to Sub-Saharan Africans because they didn't live in stone or multi-storey houses.

I reminded him that his European Brittanic or Celt ancestors didn't either (stone isn't always available and doesn't inslate as well) and why would you need upper floors unless you lived in a city or the mountains where space was scarce or you were trying to stay cool in a warm tropical humid climate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2021 09:39AM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only some crazy white nationalist, Nazi, or KKK
> person is going to say things like that openly
> nowadays.

IKR? Which is why it is appalling to see that show up on this board.

i agree with Lee & macaR in that I believe democracy should be a vehicle (means) to achieving the goals mentioned (peace, liberty, prosperity), not the end of the trail.

At the same time, I don't see another currently viable means of achieving those goals.

GNPE, a little history which you will appreciate since you are a smart man. Pure democracy is a bad system. It produces extreme outcomes that often enslave or kill minorities.

Constitutional or republican democracy can be a very good thing. The constitution/republic has rules preventing minorities from being treated too badly and forces a ruling party or ruler periodically to go back for a new mandate. Without that mandate, the leader falls from power. So it is a "tamed" democracy or a contained democracy, one that is stopped by the system from engendering a dictatorship. But if the framework is broken, as we are in danger of seeing in the US now, you end up with the sort of democracy that produces a government that then refuses ever again to hold a fair election and in which minorities of any sort are subject to extreme and permanent discrimination.

As for the goals of a democracy, you may be aiming too high. The primary purpose of a constitutional democracy is peace and stability. Both sides compete, one side wins, and both sides accept the result. There is no war to overthrow the system. By historical standards, a stable outcome is almost unique over time. The avoidance of civil strife, civil war, is a wonderful achievement.

Liberty too depends on that system. The reason people have protections against government overreach is because the US has had, until recently, a sound framework: the constitution. If democratic excess, populism in a word, overthrows the constitution there is no liberty for minorities or individuals. And prosperity? The framework is necessary to prevent the union of economic and political power in a manner that guarantees the elite a permanent advantage. I would therefore propose that the goal of a republican democracy is peace and legitimacy with decent support for liberty and prosperity.

Overwhelming movements that topple democracies--like Germany in 1933, Juan Peron, and other examples, promise greater liberty or greater prosperity but theirs is a false promise. The greatest popular movements like Revolutionary France or Hitler's Germany offer amazing freedoms and privileges to the chosen ones but end up bringing war and destruction as well as virtual enthrallment for almost everyoone.

Isaiah Berlin wrote about this in his books on the Enlightenment. He distinguished between negative and positive freedoms. Negative ones are those in the US constitution: freedom from governmental intrusion, freedom against illegal search and seizure, etc. Limits on the power of the state. Positive freedoms are different: they are things the government grants, things like a utopian society, guaranteed prosperity. Since negative freedoms are boring and uninspirational, many Enlightenment philosophers went beyond them and promised positive goals like liberty, fraternity, equality, prosperity, etc. The problem is that governments that embrace those positive goals usually override the constraints and impose dictatorships.

That is Voltaire's point, Berlin's point: if you give a government a positive mission you might as well kiss democracy goodbye because that government must dispense with constitutional restraints.

Don't forget that. Don't undervalue the importance of peace and legitimacy as a function of republican democracy. Please refrain from following the moronic Mike Lee and his praise for Captain Moroni, the leader who overthrew a democracy it the service of theocracy. Don't throw away the baby that Lee is too stupid to see with the bathwater of compromise and marginal progress.

And don't follow the obscurantist magaRomney, who doesn't value scientific or political education and hence doesn't realize he's advocating tyranny. Maintaining a democracy with strong negative freedoms is an historically unprecedented achievement. Anyone who tells you they can do better is just another Robespierre, another Trump, or one of their naive and selfish minions.

I see your points as to your historical perspectives, however mine is that peace / liberty / prosperity precede stability.

Shouldn't they all work together?

(aside) One of the failures I see today:

Remember the hacked phrase 'No taxation without representation'?

Origin: colonialists "taxation without representation is tyranny"

So, what about the undocumented workers in the U.S.? Many if not most are working here, having taxes withheld from their earnings for Social Security and other departments, BUT as people who (by & large) don't vote therefore No Representation....

How would that strike our brothers $ sisters on the right?

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see your points as to your historical
> perspectives, however mine is that peace / liberty
> / prosperity precede stability.
>
> Shouldn't they all work together?


You do need some degree of legitimacy and prosperity to make a democracy work. The troubles of the last several decades and particular the period since 2008 is one reason democracy is foundering now.

But once you have a framework in place, aiming for peace and stability is an ambitious goal. And if achieved it inevitably brings greater liberty and prosperity.

The danger arises when you jeopardize the constitutional republic by focusing on the greater goals. The result is usually a loss of liberty and prosperity for the masses and thence damage to the democratic system.

The genius of the US Constitution was the lowering of moral expectations. Rather than counting on leaders to do what is right, the system set up countervailing power centers that fought each other to ensure nobody achieved predominance. It was an extension of the GB system of governance that evolved over a millennium.

Never trust a leader who promises the moon. He is in fact a Pied Piper and you may never see your children again.

The USA is a Constitutional Republic where representatives are elected to make the laws and the laws on the books are enforced with fairness to protect Minority Rights and represent the will of the Majority in progress for the future. A lot of folks like to call the USA a Democracy but they forget about the importance of protecting the rights of minorities.

Ultimately we are all minorities. Do the older white people who support Trump really want to establish the rule that the majority can abuse the minority given that in ten years those white people will be a distinct minority?

Ask not for whom the secret police come, they come for thee.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ultimately we are all minorities.

Yep, and the same thing was said before many, many, years ago.

Check out this WW2 era US Army pro-democracy, anti-fascist short film.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Be_a_Sucker



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2021 07:26PM by anybody.

The original Antifa.

Voting works perfectly when you take yer family out to dinner. Who wants to go to McDonalds? Raise your hand! Now who wants to go to Burger King? OK, vote is counted, Burger King it is.

What's so great 'bout having a giant mob squabble and squeal over the slop they're fed. Does anybody win? I don't vote cuz democracy is a WASTE of my time.

B.S. Any system worthy of support must have a feedback loop since self-corrections are rare.

Democracy is the archetypical "feedback loop" and "self-correcting" mechanism.

I think you undervalue the immense importance of that.