Democracy

[ChrisM]

The word Democracy and it's true meaning have been obscured and occulted (hidden) from us for many hundreds of years (800). I live in NSW and the Parliament makes it abundantly clear that we are based on English Law. Well, English Law is Common Law (another thing people have very little idea of) and the Constitution (true Constitution of Australia as the the 1901 is only an "ACT" which is statute) and that is Magna Carta 1215 (no other version is valid). Below is the actual Etymology and Definition of Democracy;
It comes from Hellenic Greek, Demokratia- demos (the people and kratos (sovereignty, power)- kratein (rule). Now, from the Etymology comes the definition- Democracy is the form of Govt in which the Sovereign Supreme power is vested in the Common People; the emancipation and ethos of society produced by the power of juries (originally called the judges btw) of ordinary citizens in Trial by Jury (the 12 judges), to vet, judge and decide (which also means "make"), and enforce the law. In a Democracy, the people rule via Trial by Jury. To fully comprehend the word, it is essential to know first that Democracy embodies the people's responsible control over the Govt and Law through Trial by Jury. The people control the Govt, not the other way round- That, my friends is Democracy. The PEOPLE RULE.
As you can see, they have done a number on us but i have all the info necessary to expose these criminals for what they truly are and how they have hidden so much from us
As you can also hopefully see, words such as Democracy, Anarchy and Libertarian are very similar in that each has No Rulers: No Masters.
Much Much more to come if anyone is interested.

 

[Conza]

Democracy ≠ liberty in my opinion; and its actually resulted in de-civilisation. I don't see any need to try 'rehabilitate' the term or concept (even properly understood).

It is difficult to find many proponents of democracy in the history of political theory. Almost all major thinkers had nothing but contempt for democracy. Even the Founding Fathers of the U.S., nowadays considered the model of democracy, were strictly opposed to it. Without a single exception, they thought of democracy as nothing but mob-rule.
— Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: God that Failed

The people control the Govt, not the other way round

The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.
— Murray Rothbard

Awesome to see you've read Lysander Spooner - he wasn't in favour of democracy though? Nor the constitution... that we didn't consent to.

 

[ChrisM]

Democracy ≠ liberty in my opinion; and its actually resulted in de-civilisation. I don't see any need to try 'rehabilitate' the term or concept (even properly understood).

It is difficult to find many proponents of democracy in the history of political theory. Almost all major thinkers had nothing but contempt for democracy. Even the Founding Fathers of the U.S., nowadays considered the model of democracy, were strictly opposed to it. Without a single exception, they thought of democracy as nothing but mob-rule.
— Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: God that Failed

The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.
— Murray Rothbard

Awesome to see you've read Lysander Spooner - he wasn't in favour of democracy though? Nor the constitution... that we didn't consent to.

Well, people who state that Democracy is mob rule simply do not even slightly comprehend what Democracy actually is and how it operates. It would be the same for all the people that actually believe that voting has anything to do with Democracy- voting has nothing to do with Democracy just as mob rule has nothing to do with Democracy. This is why i mentioned Trial by Jury. If mob ruled in Trial by Jury then why is it that only 1 person choosing Not Guilty results in the entire case being thrown out? This is minority power, not mob rule. In regards to your comment "almost all major thinkers had not but contempt for Democracy", i totally disagree as most of the great thinkers admire and promote Democracy so not sure where you get your info from unless you are referring to Statists. I will be posting more on this subject in the future with actual quotes from great thinkers.

 

[ChrisM]

Winston Churchill- Patriotic inspiration of the people and Guardian of Democratic Civilisation. Author of dome of the finest literary works of all time. Quote: "The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist".
Another: " We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English Speaking World and which, through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, habeas Corpus, Trial by jury and the English Common Law, find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence" Winston Churchill- Iron Curtain speech 1946.
Just a couple of warm ups here- much more to come if you want it

 

[Conza]

- Democracy is the form of Govt in which the Sovereign Supreme power is vested in the Common People; the emancipation and ethos of society produced by the power of juries (originally called the judges btw) of ordinary citizens in Trial by Jury (the 12 judges), to vet, judge and decide (which also means "make"), and enforce the law. In a Democracy, the people rule via Trial by Jury.

Do you understand that government is not the state? Do you realise you're really just attempting to redefine the term? That no-one uses it in how you describe, and that isn't exactly helpful to discourse/understanding your actual position.

We don't need rulers (however its determined), that of course doesn't imply there's no rules (private property owners set the conditions etc.).

This is why i mentioned Trial by Jury. If mob ruled in Trial by Jury then why is it that only 1 person choosing Not Guilty results in the entire case being thrown out? This is minority power, not mob rule

What do you describe today's society as?

Who is the individual thinker closest to putting forth your position 'end goal'?

Are jurors paid in your scenario, do you support private law?

 

[ChrisM]

Do you understand that government is not the state? Do you realise you're really just attempting to redefine the term? That no-one uses it in how you describe, and that isn't exactly helpful to discourse/understanding your actual position.

We don't need rulers (however its determined), that of course doesn't imply there's no rules (private property owners set the conditions etc.).



What do you describe today's society as?

Who is the individual thinker closest to putting forth your position 'end goal'?

Are jurors paid in your scenario, do you support private law?

I can see that i am wasting both my time and energy on this with you as you seem to be totally clueless on what Democracy is and how it is supposed to operate. I would suggest doing some actual research. I was willing to post here in an attempt to educate people... In regards to redefining the term- have you even the slightest clue what Etymology is? If so, you would not post such a stupid comment. How can i possibly redefine the actual Etymology which is where Definitions are derived? I will not bother answering your other questions as they are useless to answer when you do not comprehend language. Conza- some of the questions you ask and the way you ask them suggests you have been "educated" the wrong way. Therefore, to save us both time, i will no longer post anything as i do not have the time nor energy to waste. Lastly, i am fully versed in Austrian Economics so there is no point copying and pasting other people's words and Austrian Economics is a whole different subject to what i was hoping to teach and explain here. Anyway, nice to have met you but, as mentioned, i am out of here. I truly hope you spend the time to gain actual knowledge and comprehension of that knowledge.

 

[Conza]

I can see that i am wasting both my time and energy on this with you as you seem to be totally clueless on what Democracy is and how it is supposed to operate.

I'm as intellectually honest as they come, and just trying to pick up what you're putting down.

I would suggest doing some actual research. I was willing to post here in an attempt to educate people... In regards to redefining the term- have you even the slightest clue what Etymology is? If so, you would not post such a stupid comment. How can i possibly redefine the actual Etymology which is where Definitions are derived?

I've read copious amounts on democracy. Feel free to point me in the right direction. Are you happy for me to likewise refer you to do some actual research? E.g. Action-Based Jurisprudence - are you aware of it?

Action-based legal theory provides tools to take into each case. It supplies some of the underlying questions to which case-specific details shape answers. Legal principles guide inquiry into specifics while emerging details suggest the most relevant set of legal principles to apply. Justice may be found at the meeting theory and practice—of deduction, institutions, and the details of specific cases. Sound theory functions as a service to legal practitioners, enabling them do their jobs more easily and reliably. […]​

​

Legal practice should always be on trial in the court of legal theory, while legal theory should be recognized as insufficient to do justice in any real case. Legal theory and legal practice must therefore persist in a challenging but necessary marriage between distinctive partners if they are to produce the offspring of justice. Used properly, praxeological legal concepts not only boost the clarity of legal theorizing from “the armchair,” they also enhance the ability of practitioners to parse specific cases from “the bench.”​

"Trial by jury" would just be situation within "Case law" above, yes? Quite a fair bit missing don't you think?

In regards to redefining the term- have you even the slightest clue what Etymology is? If so, you would not post such a stupid comment. How can i possibly redefine the actual Etymology which is where Definitions are derived?

I do: https://conza.tumblr.com/tagged/Etymology. Notice though, its origin has nothing to do with its current usage. Which is what I specifically made a comment about. Using clear and consistent terminology is essential to understanding. What is the point using a term so detached from its current usage? The time wasted to just present even a semi-coherent articulation seems pretty high.

I will not bother answering your other questions as they are useless to answer when you do not comprehend language. Conza- some of the questions you ask and the way you ask them suggests you have been "educated" the wrong way. Therefore, to save us both time, i will no longer post anything as i do not have the time nor energy to waste.

I was asking about the particulars of your position, to understand if you're an ancap but have some strange desire to call it "democracy" and define it as such - is it just private law but "trial by jury"? Or do you support a state i.e. monopoly of ultimate decision making over a given territory with the ability to tax - except jury's randomly selected are at the top of the 'rulers' totem pole?

I've got no idea. That's a shame.

Lastly, i am fully versed in Austrian Economics so there is no point copying and pasting other people's words and Austrian Economics is a whole different subject to what i was hoping to teach and explain here. Anyway, nice to have met you but, as mentioned, i am out of here. I truly hope you spend the time to gain actual knowledge and comprehension of that knowledge.

Who said anything about Austrian Economics? The only person who has mentioned it is you. 🤷‍♂️

Feel free to return and point me in the right direction, or make at least one reference to some material so I can read your end goal position.