Homestead mailing list

["Melody O." <melody AT crecon.com>]

At 06:36 AM 7/10/05 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Consider the populations of the various republics or democracies prior to 
>our Constitutional Convention of 1787. Consider the population of the USA 
>at that time. The framers were appropriately afraid of a democracy, 
>wherein a few thousand people could drastically upset a country of laws. 
>Now contrast that with today. We are a country of approximately 300 million 
>population. We have rules governing how elections may be initiated and how 
>they will be conducted. For the "mass mob" effect to prevail today would 
>require an overwhelming amount of organization, money and effort.
>

I would be more worried about democracy/mobocracy today.  Those living in
the Founder's time-period seemed to be more worried about being
self-sufficient than people are today.  Today people see economics in a
much different light, i.e.: Debt is good because it helps get the money out
there to make the economy stronger; saving is bad because it doesn't help
the economy to withhold money in a bank.  

Another thing to consider is people rarely *think* today.  They watch their
t.v.s and get their opinions from what they are told.

People are all for voting themselves bread and circuses, which is a natural
inherent human trait.  

Today people aren't looking down the road a bit to see what their votes
will eventually do to society, either.  They vote for the leader that looks
the best on t.v. and can sweet-talk them.

>But. BUT! Our DC Whorehouse is a democracy. It is ruled by majority vote. 
>And today it has very nearly become one-party rule. Yes, formal 
>rules--which can be changed--help to keep things stable, but as the recent 
>"nuclear option" issue illustrated, the party that controls the Senate and 
>the House could, if it chose, control the vote on any issue and could, if 
>it chose, change the rules. That is a far greater fear for me than for the 
>masses to rise up and prevail, as could happen in a pure democracy.

And it sometimes degenerates to voting themselves bread and circuses.
However, the people of the states *can* vote those representatives out that
do not represent their state's view.

In Northern Utah the people voted for fluoridation in the water; many don't
like it, but they are in the minority.  However, even though the people for
fluoridation could have taken a fluoride tablet, the people who don't want
the fluoride have no way to take it out...yet their money pays for the
fluoridation.  That is the effects of democracy.

>
>Consider further that if the presidency continues to be held by the same 
>party, the Congress continues to have the same power structure, and the 
>president has the opportunity to place two dependably pro-Republican 
>justices on the Supreme Court, that the country will be run by one party. 
>The president will be very close to being a king.
>


It is more of a worry to me that programs/issues will be passed that will
take away our freedoms (you know:  the ones the SC will still allow us to
have.)  At least if there is opposition in political powers between the
Pres and Congress,  because of differing political parties less legislation
goes through.  As it is, Congress seems to rubberstamp anything that Bush
initiates and Bush does the same for Congress.

Best wishes,
Melody