Is Western Democracy Real or a Facade?

[Mister D]

The United States government and its NATO puppets have been killing Muslim men, women and children for a decade in the name of bringing them democracy. But is the West itself a democracy?

Skeptics point out that President George W. Bush was put in office by the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore)and that a number of other elections have been decided by electronic voting machines (http://www.vdare.com/articles/evidence-of-a-stolen-election)that leave no paper trail. Others note that elected officials represent the special interests that fund their campaigns (http://www.vdare.com/articles/progressive-indictment-by-randall-burns-0) and not the voters. The bailout of the banks (http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-bailout-will-fail) arranged by Bush’s Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs (http://www.vdare.com/articles/time-for-another-pujo-committee) chairman, Henry Paulson, and Washington’s failure to indict any banksters for the fraud that contributed to the financial crisis, are evidence in support of the view that the US government represents money and not the voters.

Snip

Perhaps future historians will conclude that democracy once served the interests of money in order to break free of the power of kings, aristocracy, and government predations, but as money established control over governments, democracy became a liability. Historians will speak of the transition from the divine right of kings to the divine right of money.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/is-western-democracy-real-or-a-facade

Wow.

[Conley]

Indeed, we're not a democracy and killing people isn't always the best way to convince them our system is best. I do believe in many instances that "spreading democracy" nonsense is spread by people who know better but are using that as a way to make these wars more palatable to the American people. On the flip side, many of those neocons apparently thought that this was a worthy goal but didn't realize that foreign elections that have seen heavy U.S. military action would almost certainly go against the U.S.'s interests.

[Mister D]

Indeed, we're not a democracy and killing people isn't always the best way to convince them our system is best. I do believe in many instances that "spreading democracy" nonsense is spread by people who know better but are using that as a way to make these wars more palatable to the American people. On the flip side, many of those neocons apparently thought that this was a worthy goal but didn't realize that foreign elections that have seen heavy U.S. military action would almost certainly go against the U.S.'s interests.

In this context, when I say "democracy" I am including different kinds of republics as well. I agree with you on all points. In some cases I think it's tough to tell these two kinds of pols apart. People are capable of convincing themselves of all kinds of things.

[Mister D]

I also hold the American people ultimately accountable. We haven't been duped. We seem to buy into the false dichotomies (e.g. Democrat versus Republican) and do so willingly.

[Peter1469]

We certainly are living in a post Constitutional society.

[Conley]

We certainly are living in a post Constitutional society.

No doubt about that.

[Conley]

I also hold the American people ultimately accountable. We haven't been duped. We seem to buy into the false dichotomies (e.g. Democrat versus Republican) and do so willingly.

That's fair. I'd like to think the numbers of those who "willingly buy in" are decreasing in numbers, unfortunately the reason they're waking up is because both parties are shameless.

[Mister D]

We certainly are living in a post Constitutional society.

Indeed.

[Mister D]

That's fair. I'd like to think the numbers of those who "willingly buy in" are decreasing in numbers, unfortunately the reason they're waking up is because both parties are shameless.

I don't know. I've seen a lot of people online say what we're saying but then they go right back to the partisan foolishness. People have a really hard time abandoning that conceptualization of American politics and it's accompanying vocabulary at least in my experience.

[Conley]

I don't know. I've seen a lot of people online say what we're saying but then they go right back to the partisan foolishness. People have a really hard time abandoning that conceptualization of American politics and it's accompanying vocabulary at least in my experience.

Maybe I spend too much time on this site with all you fancy-pants independents. :angry: :laugh:

[Mister D]

Maybe I spend too much time on this site with all you fancy-pants independents. :angry: :laugh:

I didn't mean you or present company.

I have a core principles and a worldview. I'm not independent in the sense of "middle of the road" etc. I don't think I would describe myself that way.

[Conley]

Understood. I mean independent only so far as free thinking and not a party stooge.

[Mister D]

Understood. I mean independent only so far as free thinking and not a party stooge.

I think most people will readily acknowledge the truth of what we've said about the state of the two party system but they just go right back to slinging mud at the other party.

[RollingWave]

Well, I think democracy is always relative, past democracies are hardly perfect either, in Athenes and Rome only citizens (who were male, and most likely only made up of something like 15-20% of the population at best). could vote, and even then the votes were often swayed by a few big shots and big families. and Anyone reading the history of the west in the later 19th and early 20th C (espeically on general social conditions) would probably find more similarity between then and China today than the USA today etc.. it's a continued work in process I'd think.

Money plays a too big part in the current world's democracy I agree, but let's not pretend that it didn't in the past, I should point out that the American revolution started over..... taxes ... and was mostly lead by.... the (very) rich... for example... but I'd think that money and the well being of the citizens as a whole is also not neccesarily seperated (obviously) and more over when they are clearly seperated, it is quite possible for the later to overwrite the former as well.


Look at Taiwan, the ruling KMT party was one of the wealthiest party in the world during it's late authoritarian and early democratic stage, but it still somehow lost to the DPP, who's candidate was born to the poorest of all peasant familes. Sure other aspect playe into it (such as the KMT's own internal struggles). but it shows that money is not a indestructable force that can overwrite everything else with inpunity.

Call me an optimist I guess, but I don't believe that (the vast majority of) human are inherently evil or can be fooled forever against their own interest.

[Conley]

As much as I hate the idea of money in politics though, it will always be there and the wealthy will always be more powerful. That's just the nature of the beast. While exceptions exist like your KMT / DPP example, it just seems that situations like that only arise in unusual circumstances. I don't believe money nor those who wield it are inherently evil (to borrow a phrase :grin:) so I have no problem staying optimistic.

[Peter1469]

100% transparency into the system would solve some of these problems with the wealthy having great political power. If citizens knew that a politician was taking money from a rich guy for favors, it would be less likely to happen and may end the politician's career with the next election.

[Conley]

100% transparency into the system would solve some of these problems with the wealthy having great political power. If citizens knew that a politician was taking money from a rich guy for favors, it would be less likely to happen and may end the politician's career with the next election.

But even with the obscured transparency we have now, it's easy to connect the dots. It seems to me people just don't care. There are so many examples and such obvious ones of pols taking money and then sponsoring or supporting legislation that favors those companies.

[Peter1469]

Well you have a point there.

[MMC]

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is nothing more evil than that which stems from man. The greatest leaders of all time. All committed acts of evil.

What about a Monarchial Republic. I believe the expanded definitions of so called Democracy.(Mob Rule) Can be placed in check.

[Mister D]

Frankly, I've become increasingly anti-democratic and anti-liberal (liberalism in it's broadest sense). I know I stand with a small minority in that regard, at least in terms of being fully conscious of it, but that's how I am.

[Chris]

Agree, democracy, from republic to social democracy, is the worst form of government, contains the seeds of its own destruction. That leaves only two other forms of governance, monarchism or anarchism. Excellent argument for this in Hoppe's Democracy- The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order (see this intro (http://mises.org/hoppeintro.asp)).

[Mister D]

Thanks. This looks very interesting.