We Must Destroy The Constitution To Save Our Democracy!
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (69)
sorted by:
Not an expert but isn't democracy fundamentally flawed. The tyranny of the majority is something that used to be considered a bug of the system, now it is a desirable feature?
Democracy only works in a racially and culturally homogeneous nation, and necessitates that the vote is tied to land ownership and to an individual family.
That is the circumstance under which the founders saw potential.
Over the years every single piece of what the founders set up as checks on the corruption of democracy were removed and cast aside.
Now a foreign invader with 80iq has the same theoretical political power as a generational native with an iq of 120.
Is that justice? Does that lead to a positive future? It very obviously does not.
Well, to that point, in a homogenous state a native with an iq of 120 has the same power as a native with an iq of 50. Is that justice?
Your stupid thought experiment inadvertently touched upon a critical concept: IQ thresholds. The quality of your society does not scale linearly with the IQ of your citizens. There exists a clear threshold beyond which functional and prosperous civilization is possible - and below which it is basically impossible to sustain such a nation.
Look at Asian nations. Are they proportionally “better” than white nations because Asians have an higher average IQ? No. But every nation with an average IQ of 90 is guaranteed to be a shithole.
So why did you include IQ in your original point if it's irrelevant to the quality of society?
Would the 50iq monkey own land and have a family?
Your original point only focused on IQ, so that's where I was building from.
But for this exercise we'll say yes, since we'll have everyone on the same playing field.
Don't worry by 2024 the USA will be broken up and pretty good chance we'll go kinetic clearing out all the communist waste that built up in the bowels of Uncle Sam.
Move to a deep red state and wait and see if that night mare scenario takes place, if so defend your State and basic freedoms from men who would happily enslave you and your family.
None of the founding father’s wanted a democracy and the constitution was written specifically to prevent democratic rule.
Exactly. That's why we have a Constitutional Republic.
Only when the party in power is the same one as yours. Otherwise they flip their shit and pitch a bitch about not being properly represented. Hence why the left lost their shit when Trump took power because "Muh Popular Vote".
Democracy, as the founders intended with only land-owning white male Christians of good moral character voting, could have worked. Every expansion of "voting rights" made it worse with the final nail in the coffin being womens' vote.
After the 19th the collapse became inevitable.
Both men and women, including black men and women, could vote in some states as early as 1776. Voting was generally tied to owning property. Women who owned property in New Jersey, for example, could vote. The same goes for free black men and women who owned property.
The problem wasn't giving women or black people the right to vote, the problem was allowing people with no stake in society the right to vote.
IMHO detaching the right to vote from land ownership may have been a good move, but only if it could have been replaced by something else that indicates your stake in society. For starters, only people who pay more to the government in taxes than they receive in benefits should be allowed to vote. That would cut out half of the population right there.
The fatal flaw is giving people who contribute nothing to society the ability -- via voting -- to take from those who do contribute to society.
you need to separate the idea of exceptional individuals from the concept of democracy
In practice women and blacks, as a demographic, only vote against individual rights and for bigger and more intrusive government. They always vote against the interests of whites, men, and productive individuals. Those property owning blacks and women would be better off if all blacks and women couldnt vote.
You can verify this by checking the voting results.
What advantage is there for the nation to including them in the voting process?
We might as well ban non-Christians from voting too, while we’re at it.
In fact, we should only allow Protestant Christian men to vote. They are, after all, the only group in the world that consistently votes for liberal values.
——
You see, your racist and sexist “solution” isn’t really a solution because it’s built on gross generalizations that don’t actually get to the bottom of the matter. The better solution would be to actually understand why these voting patterns are harmful and make sure preventative measures are codified into law. Property ownership was one such measure that we sadly did away with. Replacing it with anti-liberal policies isn’t going to solve anything for a multitude of reasons.
Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
9 out of 10 participants in the gang rape had a great time! That is a 90% approval rating!