Do you think that sometimes restricting democracy is necessary in order to protect democracy?

[Anonymous]

Yes, that makes sense to me.

No, that is dumb.

See results.

[nightdrot]

Yes, democracy is a balancing act. It is not a matter of letting go the reins, but of balancing competing values. As Edmund Burke, the father of classical conservatism put it, ". . . The extreme of liberty (which is its abstract perfection, but its real fault) obtains nowhere, nor ought to obtain anywhere. Because extremes, as we all know, in every point which relates either to our duties or satisfactions in life are destructive both to virtue and enjoyment. Liberty, too, must be limited in order to be possessed. The degree of restraint it is impossible in any case to settle precisely. But it ought to be the constant aim of every wise public council to find out by cautious experiments and rational cool endeavours with how little, not how much, of this restraint the community can subsist. For liberty is a good to be improved, and not an evil to be lessened. It is not only a private blessing of the first order, but the vital spring and energy of the state itself, which has just so much life and vigor as there is liberty in it. . . ."

Indeed, one need only look at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to see this principle at work. The public may not, even if they want to, pass laws to restrict speech, religion, the press, and so on. As James Madison wrote in Federalist #51, "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Government and freedom are a balancing act. Fully restricted democracy is dictatorship. Yet unrestricted democracy is chaos that, ironically, is likely in due course to conduce to tyranny.

Unfortunately, the populism of the age, augmented by a technology that conduces to a sort of cultural, not to say individual, narcissism, loses this nuance. It takes any restriction on freedom as the harbinger of tyranny. The result is the decaying democracy that you see at the moment. Indeed, a democracy that conduces to decadence and anarchy.

Politics - especially democracy - is a complicated and nuanced business because man is a complicated and nuanced being. To govern a democracy absent that complex insight is to assure the demise of that democracy in the long run.

[blueonblack22]

This is about what happened in Colorado about taking Trump off both the primary and general ballot isn’t it?

I do not believe that that the 2020 election was “stolen” from Trump in a legal sense. But it was figuratively stolen from him what big tech (Twitter/FB censoring the TRUE story about Hunter Biden) and the deep state did.

But now the election IS illegally getting stolen from Trump. I say all that not being a Trump fan and not wanting him to be the GOP candidate. However I want Biden OUT and straight to the nursing home where he belongs. And it’s not about his senility or him even being a democrat. It’s the fact he fucked up literally everything he’s attempted to do as president. His judgment is atrocious. From hyperinflation, to the border crisis, to overseas wars, etc the guy is 110% incompetent. And even if he is guilty of receiving money through Hunter Biden’s corrupt schemes (and I believe he is) I would not even care about that (yes i am serious) if his presidential policy wasn’t so horrible for America. Biden is not a moderate

But how much more self destruction do democrats need to create for themselves i. e. voting in incompetent candidates until they learn their pursuit “utopia vision” is ultimately making everybody miserable? Hyperinflation and the economy harms everyone including democrats. Why can’t these people accept that Trump as insufferable as his personality is had a superior policy for American then gross then Biden?

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4366706-more-than-half-of-voters-say-they-are-worse-off-under-biden-poll/amp/

[msmissydc]

Yes, in a completly unrestricted democracy people can vote to abolish democracy. Also on a more grounded level, voting for reprensantatives IS a restriction to democracy. Unrestricted would mean voting for every law as a public voting. That is often a case to make democracy even viable.

[monorprise]

@msmissydc
Would you not say representatives are more a tool for implementing a goverment useful for imposing limits on but not what Identifies a Republic itself?

After-all even the Greek's who had direct votes on everything also had officials who represented them in actually leading. They were a pure democracy because they could vote to let those leaders do anything including ultimately corrupting and destroying themselves and their democracy.

It is the rules which signify the limits of our consent to be governed as individuals (or at federal level States) which really define a Republic don't you agree?

[msmissydc]

Agree but I still think its a restriction compared to direct democracy. The question was exactly about restrictions that help or even protect democracies.

[ADFSDF1996]

Considering how there are people who actually agree shows just deluded society has become. Anybody who is willing to infringe on the rights and liberties of the people is an enemy of the state.

[CalmUntilAbused]

Well... Democracy only works as long as it's actually a politeia, or a form of government where the citizens know what's in their own best interest, and as such, it's highly susceptible to degradation to a regular democracy, considered by Aristotle as a perverted or deviant form of government, due to socialist tendencies among those incapable of and/or unwilling to put in effort for their own economic stability. So the way I see it, a monarchy or an aristocracy (not to be mistaken for tyranny or oligarchy) are the best forms of government. The American democracy only survives because the Southern states constitute a politeia with the broader democracy and can defend this stance due to the right to bear arms. If not for that redeeming quality, the American democracy would degrade to a democracy as Aristotle saw it, and then further to socialism/communism, with a totalitarian government to enforce these ideas (and it is actually moving towards that direction, it's just slowed down and kind of barricaded by the Southern states, as if socialist and communist tendencies were to take over the US, the Southern states would launch another Civil War in defense of their freedom, and while these tendencies are slowly taking over the US, there is a certain point that is currently impossible to break through).

[monorprise]

If you go back the pre-FDR definition of Democracy rather than the muddled post-FDR version we use today then yes.

A majority of the people cannot vote for anything and everything and not enslave & oppress themselfs and destroy their democracy.

I would like to say that hyperbola but this always happens to democracy eventually regardless. As the rules of the republic by necessity being enforced by the same people are corrupted or break down eventually.

America's Federal Constitution for example is in practice largely a thing of the past to our federal leaders have over the last 200 years usurped the ultimate unchecked power to rewrite or ignore it on a case by case basis.

As such America the democracy that effectively exist at the federal level is falling apart as leaders abuse their position to retain power using everything from the public treasury to buy votes to public law enforcement to spy on, suppress, and control their rivals.

It would have collapsed already if their goverment itself had more direct control, but they have yet to successfully take direct control of the election process itself, nor 90% of law enforcement, with the Law enforcement they do control still being very limited and few in number.

As such rivals can still rise to power in the State that have divergent interest. That too is on its way out as the Feds have nonetheless acquired the physical means with the largest army in history to force their will. So its just a matter of time before the ever growing inclination leads someone to use it.

[rigmarole]

I think it’s hilarious that the “Confederate Democrat” states didn’t learn from the Civil War. Trump is way ahead of you guys… Commies are turning him into the Abraham Lincoln of the modern era to be immortalized in American history as one of the greatest presidents of all time… You realize Abraham Lincoln called out the militia, deployed military forces, suspended the writ of habeas corpus in certain areas, authorized arbitrary arrests, and empanelled military tribunals to try civilians in occupied or contested areas to save the republic… Trump also set a plan in motion while in office with Presidential Emergency Action Documents (PEADs) and FEMA emergency declarations… There are lines that can not be crossed… Trump already claimed broad emergency powers that the Constitution has vested in the executive branch which grant him the power he needs to deal with the rebellion in the commander-in-chief clause of the Constitution, in the clause of Section II requiring him to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and in his presidential oath “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the U. S.”… Democrats think they’re cute… Maybe thier cell mates will as well… He got a purty mouth ain’t he...

[abc3643]

Of course.

That's why you live in a REPUBLIC and not a true democracy.

In fact, it's enshrined in the US Constitution under Article IV Section 4:

Section 4.
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.

If you want to understand the dangers of a true democracy and why we don't live in one, look up the phrase "tyranny of the majority" and consider perusing this volume:

DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA
By Alexis De Tocqueville

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/815/815-h/815-h.htm

[Siri137]

A nation being both a republic and a democracy isn't impossible, because the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. You knew that, right?

[abc3643]

@Siri137
I understand. But what I said is true.
In a "true democracy", the individual people collectively but directly make the decisions. We do not live in such a democracy. We live in a "democratic republic" and we live in a federation. These are important restraints on power - the "tyranny of the majority".
So, yes, our democratic republic federation is a democracy, but it is a restricted democracy. Why? To protect democracy because, without those restrictions, the tyranny of the majority will run rampant and the society will rip itself apart in revolutions and rebellions.

That's why I answered "Yes" to the original question "Do you think that sometimes restricting democracy is necessary in order to protect democracy?"

[abc3643]

That's what the Bill of Rights is all about.

[HiveBee]

Democracy IS restricted and there is no such thing as an unrestricted Democracy.

Imagine an unrestricted Democracy. Imagine that as long as there is a majority vote, ANYTHING can be done:

Such as having a random person murdered or tortured for no reason other than a majority voted on it.

So we can see clearly that Democracy MUST be restricted.

This is where RIGHTS come in. Individual rights. Freedom of speech and all that.

The constitution is meant to set limits to Democracy and determine how exactly it should be wielded.

[monorprise]

@HiveBee
There use to be a term for restricted democracy it was called a republic.

It terrible what FDR did in changing the manual to define America as a mere Democracy then broadening that term to claim it includes all republics as well as pure democracy.

A republic has to have working rules that restrict what the people via their representative can do protecting the system itself.

Democracy which should refer to Greek style democracy does not have any such rules.

[HiveBee]

That's terrible that he did that. And people today really believe we should be able to vote on anything.

I learned recently in my state that wine cannot be sold in grocery stores.

Why? Because the liquor industry lobbied for wine to be taken out of grocery stores because it was competing with their sales.

That is crazy to me.

[loveslongnails]

I'm not wanting to get into the whole "pure democracy" or majority rules discussion - that's a sideshow. There are always restrictions on actions in an ordered society - they're called laws, but there's an inherent problem with them and the creation of them.

One huge problem is a simple question of "fairness". Let's say you have 1 million and 1 persons voting on an issue. 500,000 vote "no, 500,001 vote "yes". Is it really "fair" to the population as a whole to impose one side's will on the other side for the sake of one vote?

The other huge problem is gerrymandering, an unethical method of controlling the vote in a republic to give an advantage to a particular side where one doesn't really exist. This takes place in so many states right now that it renders voting useless in some cases, which is exactly what it's intended to do.

[jshm2]

That's what laws are for, jackass.

Democracy is about people having a say in the laws, rules, and rulers, via votes. Doesn't always work as lobbies and financiers can influence all three to their favour.

But it's why you use the vote to change those who are too easily influenced.

It's the fatal flaw in democracy, but that doesn't mean you restrict democracy itself, as that is not then a democracy, but something else.

[SotiCoto]

That doesn't really make sense. What most first world countries have doesn't really qualify as democracy. Governments are simply being run as businesses on a for-profit basis. And the business that gets to run any given country depends on which one has the most money to spend on their election campaign to sell creative lies to the populace. And so the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, everything gets worse, and the prats in charge don't care.

[DARKCLOUD1945X]

THE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNIST PARTY OF AMERICA is doing that now they are punishing Trump now without a conviction of any court only the court of DEMOCRATS and courts loaded with 100% Democrats. Just look at New York the judge convicted Trump yes convicted him before the trial began. What you're seeing is the penalty phase. there was no jury trial just a staunch anti-Trump judge sitting in judgement. Democratic justice at its corrupt best.

[DryGermanGuy]

What about the 60+ lawsuits that Trump lost after the 2020 election in front of not only Republican-appointed judges but also judges appointed by him personally?

[DARKCLOUD1945X]

@DryGermanGuy That was then this now besides none of them was a conviction. He was never convicted. They were as you say were lawsuits. Not a criminal conviction which are two different things. Hunter Biden Is charged and can be convicted sent to prison will have a criminal record loose a law suits you lose money, property or other valuable items and no criminal record. So Trump could have lost a thousand lawsuits in 2020 they have no bearing on a criminal case. Which is what he is fighting now, and the judges now mostly weighted to the Democrats brought by Democrats.

[pickles77]

Depends if it’s moral and lawful. Nowadays it doesn’t even need to be moral you just need a story to make it appear that way and to show people one small sliver of the big picture. Then you have the appearance of freedom but in exchange society is misguided and deceived.

[OddBeMe]

Highly highly depends. The constitution is literally restricting our freedoms in exchange for a social contract. But it’s written as limited as possible instead like many monarchies before, broad.

So yes, it’s absolutely necessary to restrict freedoms in any society, even democracies. Thats making laws that protect citizens, who vote for democracy, so I guess there’s your circle.

[goaded]

I voted it's dumb, but I wasn't considering laws and constitutions; the rules of the game, if you will. I don't think it's OK to take a working democracy and then restrict it without a very good reason.

[monorprise]

So if we play truth or Dare I can take your house?

You maybe ok with no limits on goverment but thats why your country had soo many dictators, and killed soo many people.

[goaded]

@monorprise Did you bother reading past the first sentence?

Guardrails are there for a reason; I was talking about when people try to remove them to gain or keep power. Like when Trump tried to insert an AG who was willing to outright lie for him rather than respect his oath of office.

[NaultD]

If an individual are actively anti democratic. They just crossed the bridge and burned it down behind them. That is not acceptable for any society in any way shape or form.

[jimmy2]

What is needed and most likely will happen after the movie Civil War will be a civil war do to this movie teaching everyone who sees it.
The next election will be won by Democrats because they cheat by signing up as many iminagrsnts they can and that simply cheating.

It's just my opinion but it sure looks like this can happen

[Anonymous]

If you restrict democracy to 'protect' democracy then you do not have a democracy, Western countries are representative democracies where we vote for those who will represent us in government, I know that the US is very different from other Western nations where they register as one of three choices Democrat, Republican, or Independent and the current Democrat administration are tinkering with the methods of voting.

[Anonymous]

Restricting democracy is the opposite of preserving democracy. I'm not opposed to the notion of like enacting violence against violent people to later obtain peace, but I don't think that quite applies here. Some would day it does but I think the mere act of restricting democracy already muddies democracy in a way that isn't easily or quickly corrected. It's just been tainted and it won't recovery any time soon.

[Whitewulf]

No I say screw democracy we are a constitutional Republic.
“ pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the Republic’ sound familiar. And there is a big difference

[DryGermanGuy]

"We are here to preserve democracy, not to practice it."

- Capt. Franklin Ramsey, Crimson Tide

[sawno]

Only to the extent that you should not be allowed to vote it out of existence.