democracy philosophy, not religion

[Athena]

Democracy is the result of philosophy, not political science.

The bible did not result in a concept of human rights, as people believed everything was up to God, and God put people in the positions of life they had, and all the lowest were to do, was to obey those God put over them. Christian Europe believing we are evil by nature and born in sin, was sure there must be strong authority over the people to keep control of them. The Christian world was fighting evil, and is again today. As today people believe the US's war against "evil" is necessary. So do the Muslims fighting to keep the US influence out of their territory. Speak of cultural change! This emotionalism is not the thinking culture that democracy is suppose to be, and it seem subconsciously we know that as we the Muslims who believe they are fighting evil.

The concept of human rights came from philosophers such as Locke. The concept of liberty was shocking to those who believed we are born in sin. Christian Europe did not expect the democracy, with liberty, of the US to succeed.

Locke, and other educated people of his day, were literate in Greek and Roman classics. No one saw democracy in the bible, until there was literarily in these classics, and people began returning to the concept of a God that rules by reason, rather than one that rules by whim, because he is pleased or displeased.

Newton was important to democracy, because his science validate the universe is ordered. He was Christian, however, when validation of an order universe is mixed with Cicero, we get a stronger argument for democracy.

"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of
universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons
to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong doing by its
prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or
prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any
effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law,
nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it, and it
is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed
from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not
look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it.
And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens,
or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal
and unchangeable law will be valued for all nations and all
times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God,
over us all, for he is the author of this law, its
promulgator, and its enforcing judge.
Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying
his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will
suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is
commonly considered punishment." - Cicero

Cicero was a Roman statesman and read by most educated men, playing a strong role in the development of our form of government, which we don't seem to understand any more, thanks to people who insist the US is not a democracy, but a republic. So was Nazi, Christian Germany a republic, and the US has imitated Germany in every significant way, and if we do not come to a better understanding of what democracy as a culture with government as only one expression of that culture, we have fought every war for nothing!

Look up Naturalism, get a better understanding of "True law is right reason in agreement with nature" and what was meant by the "pursuit of happiness". Science is to democracy what Christianity is to autocracy. The opposite of democracy is not communism, that is an economic difference that includes democratic voting. The opposite of democracy is autocracy, and since the US stopped educating for democracy, it has unleashed the power of autocracy, and is rapidly become identical to the Christian Republic it defeated in two world wars.

[zynner]

Quote by: Athena Democracy is the result of philosophy, not political science.

Athena, I think you are mixing the concepts of democracy and liberty.

Democracy is one form of government, which is a subject of politics, which is a branch of philosophy.

Christian Europe believing we are evil by nature and born in sin, was sure there must be strong authority over the people to keep control of them.

Yes, they believed that. They were wrong.

The concept of human rights came from philosophers such as Locke. The concept of liberty was shocking to those who believed we are born in sin. Christian Europe did not expect the democracy, with liberty, of the US to succeed.

Democracies go back to ancient Greece (at least). The Western world was well aware that the history of democracy was that it always devolved into mob rule once the majority simply voted to rule over the minority. (By the way, this is exactly what Iraqis think "democracy" is and is the reason we are seeing the mess that we are seeing today. Europeans, before Locke and others, thought the same way.)

The US Constitution was an attempt to deal with this problem by strictly limiting the powers of the government. The USA was an experiment in liberty, not democracy (which was nothing new at all). The idea was that if the government did not have the authorization to allow the majority to rule over the minority, then this problem might be solved. Many people in Europe didn't think it would work. They were right: it did not.

and people began returning to the concept of a God that rules by reason, rather than one that rules by whim, because he is pleased or displeased.

Huh? These people were discovering that reason can actually answer questions about the world and about how to live in the world. The problem was that these new ideas were still corrupted by the supersition of religion.

God ("faith") is the opposite of reason. During the Enlightenment, people were awakening to the concept that reason could really answer questions. But they were mixing reason with religion because they still wanted to keep their religion (they had become brainwashed).

This mix of superstition and reason is why the world is so f*cked up to this very day.

Newton was important to democracy, because his science validate the universe is ordered.

Newton was important to reason (and physics, of course), not democracy.

I agree with you that reason is rooted in nature. This is why reason is valid.

The scientific method is possible because it is rooted in reason, which is rooted in nature ("reality"). All hypothesis must be tested in reality ("nature"). The same is true of any ideas applied to philosophy.

When you use the word "democracy" you seem to actually be describing the concept of "liberty."

Democracy is just a form of voting -- majority rule. But liberty is a system of politics, which itself is rooted in and proven to be true and valid by reality ("nature").

I might agree with every word you said if you used the word "liberty" instead of "democracy."

But if you really do mean "majority rule" then I disagree completely.

~ zynner

[gallo]

Quote by: Athena Democracy is the result of philosophy, not political science.

Really? That's an unusual assertion.

Quote by: Athena The bible did not result in a concept of human rights, as people believed everything was up to God, and God put people in the positions of life they had, and all the lowest were to do, was to obey those God put over them.

Some pretty deep thoughts there, Athena. But you do have trouble with the meaning and application of certain terms, ans zynner has aptly pointed out.

Quote by: Athena The concept of human rights came from philosophers such as Locke. The concept of liberty was shocking to those who believed we are born in sin. Christian Europe did not expect the democracy, with liberty, of the US to succeed.

True. For example, some of the better known phrases from the Declaration of Independence come from Locke and other philosophers of the Enlightenment. For example, that "We hold these truths to be self evident" is certainly not Biblical or Christian. Truth was not from scripture but was innate in every human. And rather than someone who was "by the Grace of God, King," supported by a privileged nobility, there was the idea that all men are created equal. Certainly not Biblical or Christian. Further, all men are endowed by their Creator (a clear reference to deism rather than the Biblical God) with unalienable rights. Previously, King or Church could take life and liberty away from anyone at will. And, of course, happiness was not the object expressed by the Bible or traditional Christianity. The words, "life, liberty, and..." are taken directly from Locke.

Quote by: Athena Newton was important to democracy, because his science validate the universe is ordered. He was Christian, however, when validation of an order universe is mixed with Cicero, we get a stronger argument for democracy.

Newton wasn't actually a christian. His views were more Christological. His religion could more properly be described as Arianism, in that he denied the trinity and the divinity of Jesus. At best, Newton was a Unitarian.

Quote by: Athena Look up Naturalism,...

But you seem to confuse naturalism as philosophy with naturalism as a method. The later is science, the former is not.

By the way, the United States is not now and has never been a democracy. Our government was envisioned and established as a democratic republic.

[Athena]

Let's try this when someone says "that was done democratically", what does that mean?

Why did the US enter WWI crying "democracy and autocracy can not co-exist". How is democracy different from an autocracy?

Again in WWII it was said we were defending democracy, and again when the US invaded Iraq is it said this is about democracy?

If there is not a relationship between democracy and liberty, why does the US repeatedly defend and spread democracy?

[Athena]

By the way, it is not unusual to say democracy comes out of philosophy. I don't know, I was really hoping for something better. If this discussion doesn't improve, I need to take another break from the futility. Democracy has everything to do with philosophy. Where do you think the concept came from? Liconln was quoting to Pericles when he said "government of the people, for the people, by the people". Why at any time in history would the rule of tyrants become the rule of the many? The answer is philosophical. Come on, attempt to reason through how the rule of a few became rule by the many.

[zynner]

Athena,

"Democracy" was an attempt to have the people rule themselves rather than a king rule the people. Is that what you are getting at?

Here's the question when it comes to a democracy: How do we the people go about making decisions? Ultimately, we MUST make decisions, right? That is what it's all about.

Rather than a king deciding for everyone, we the people will do it. Right?

So, HOW do we actually implement that in the real world? We must vote in some way. We can each vote directly (California has issues put forth during elections whereby each voter gets one vote, such as bond issues for new schools). Or, we can elect representatives who will then make decisions, but they have to vote, too (California, of course, also has a legislature which does this).

Now, HOW do we vote? It will always come down to majority rule. If only one person got to vote, then it would not be a democracy. So, lots of people vote and then the decision is made by however the majority decides (whichever side gets the most votes).

Going way back in history, humans were in nomadic tribes that followed the animals they hunted. With the invention/discovery of agriculture, humans settled into villages, towns, and then cities. Humans had land and crops to sustain them. Some humans invaded and raped and pillaged. So, humans figured out how to defend against this and eventually certain individuals formed defensive groups to ward off the invading gangs. That was the start of modern governments.

These early "protectors" eventually evolved into kingdoms. The so-called protectors, however, were often even more abusive than the invaders. So, some humans thought it would be better to eliminate the kings and just have all decisions within the community decided "by the people" and democracy was born.

However, how do we vote? It always comes down to majority rule. And whenever the majority votes to violate the rights of the minority, then the democractic government dies.

It happens slowly over time, but it always happens. Sooner or later, the have-nots realize they can steal from the haves and it's all over. Or, the majority race realize they can enslave the minority race. However it comes down, there is always a majority and a minority on some issue.

The USA was an attempt to protect the rights of all, especially the minority, as a way to overcome the problems with democracy.

(Again, "minority" does not necessarily mean racial minority, it can mean anything, such as the majority poor and minority rich, for example. But regarding slavery, it was something that already existed and was negotiated during the 1787 convention, protected for a period of 21 years -- the age of adulthood for anyone born at that time -- and then it would no longer be protected by the Constitution).

So, what the USA was all about was an experiment in liberty. Yes, there was a democratic component to it because there must be some sort of voting process. But the system was much more complex than, say, the democracy of ancient Greece.

The people voted for members of the House of Representatives, members of their own state legislatures, and members of the Electoral College. The state legislators voted for Senators and the Electoral College members voted for President. Furthermore, the Constitution was written in such a way that the powers of the federal government were clearly defined and the Bill of Rights further clarified and restricted those powers.

This was a system of LIBERTY, not democracy, per se.

MOST people today -- including most Americans and especially including most American politicans, George Bush being a prime example -- have NO CLUE what this system of liberty is all about.

The people of the Middle East have no clue what it is all about because they have no such history to draw from to get these kinds of ideas. To them, "democracy" is pure majority rule and the majority will just vote to steal the oil from the minority and kill them. To them, there is no such thing as liberty. They don't understand it.

George Bush also does not understand it and does not care for it. He has pulled the wool over the eyes of millions of people. He and other politicians spout a lot of hot air about bringing democracy to the world. Why? Two reasons. One, most of them don't know what the hell they're talking about, don't understand the system of liberty, and don't really care since their objective is power rather than participating in the system of liberty. The other reason is, some (not all) politicians are actually hostile to the concept of liberty and use "democracy" rhetoric to confuse the issue and redirect thinking away from liberty. George Bush is such a person.

Liberty is the system that the founders of the USA were strving to acheive. They wrote a lot of bad things about "democracy," and were heavily influenced by John Locke. Locke and others got their ideas from philosophers, going back to Aristotle. So, yes, it is rooted in philosophy, of which politics is a branch.

Of course "the founders" is a term that's misleading since not all of them agreed -- Hamilton wanted a monarchy. But most of them were trying to figure out how to implement some sort of liberty.

~ zynner

[Jack]

Wow, zynner. That was coherent, lucid and from what I can still remember from my school years, pretty accurate.

Democracy can be crippled when abused by those with money. Since we practice a market-driven economy, those with money can influence the way we practice democracy. In effect they can buy votes.

But liberty as an ideal can never be crippled by those who don't endorse it or practice it in their countries. Liberty can exist under systems not democratic.

[Athena]

Zenner you put so much work into your post. Can we drop the political discussion and stay with philosophy?

Do we have agreement that the first democracy was Athens? Can we agree that this came about because of a belief in many Gods, who were brothers and sisters?

When the philosophers asked how the Gods resolve their differences, they determined, reason, is the controlling force of universe made manifest in speech. It was believed we are as the Gods because we can learn and reason. Democracy is about doing things the way the Gods themselves do things. The Gods didn't vote. They argued until they had a consensus on the best reasoning.

Forget the laws and law enforcers for a minute and think about culture. Our technological society has gone over the edge with excessive need to be technologically correct. This is destroying our justice and democracy in general, as we are becoming an impersonal police state, the complete oposite of what the hope for democracy.

The Statue of Liberty carries a book for literacy and a torch for enlightenment.
She stands for our democracy, with justice and liberty for all. Only highly moral people can liberty, and that is gained through education for good moral judgement, and literacy. These are cultural qualities.

Our form of government is republic. It is our culture that is suppose to be democratic. Our form of government is only one expression of democracy. How we treat each other, the quality of all our relationships, are other eexpressions of democracy. You see a Zionist nation for Jews, can never be a democracy, because the culture of Zionism is not one of democracy. Isreal has a degree of political democracy, but that is no good without a culture for democracy. And the US has forgotten the culture of democracy and is the New World Order it stood against. Please, democracy is about philosophy, not religion, and its government is only one expression of the culture for democracy. Forget that and it dies!

[Athena]

Quote by: Isherwood Wow, zynner. That was coherent, lucid and from what I can still remember from my school years, pretty accurate. Democracy can be crippled when abused by those with money. Since we practice a market-driven economy, those with money can influence the way we practice democracy. In effect they can buy votes. But liberty as an ideal can never be crippled by those who don't endorse it or practice it in their countries. Liberty can exist under systems not democratic.

I don't think we share the same understanding of democracy. Brothers and sisters are equals, and we must focus on human rights, not laws. Again, democracy is a matter of philosophy and culture. Forget that, and it dies.

[zynner]

Isherwood --

Thanks.

Regarding the democracy and money thing, I am wondering if it is really possible to have democracy without money influence of control.

People today tend to denounce the "rich, white man" from 200 years ago as being racist and sexist. But think about it from their perspective. Let's say you are a rich, white man AND you are in a democracy. What will likely happen?

You will have your wealth voted away from you, that's what. So, to protect yourself, you will argue that only "certain" people should have a vote. After all, if the poor can vote to take the wealth of the rich, then *everybody* will be poor. What will that accomplish?

If you are not able to persuade others that only "certain" people should have the vote, then what are your options? You will have to buy the legislature. Ultimately, you will probably throw in the towel and just say, "What the hell?" and you will jump into the free-for-all yourself and get as much tax money flowing your way as the farmers who get paid to grow no crops or the welfare moms who get paid to have babies do.

Democracy becomes a free-for-all and I don't see any way around it.

So, I think that is why the "rich, white men" from 200 years ago were not only against democracy but also why they were against universal democracy. Not saying they were morally justified, but I can see where they were coming from.

I also agree that democracy and liberty really have very little, if anything, to do with each other. Sometime when you get a chance, check out Dubai. It's basically a monarchy, but considered a very free society (not what most Westerners think of as an Arab country).

A benign dictator or king who leaves everybody in peace to live their own lives as they see fit is probably a much better society than a democratically-elected free-for-all government that does the bidding of those who would like to oppress others.

One has nothing to do with the other (democracy and liberty); it's just that the Founding Fathers had nothing else to go on at the time.

~ zynner

[Jack]

I am wondering if it is really possible to have democracy without money influence of control.

A democratic society would not have to be capitalistic. If currency could be democratized, it couldn't become a tool to be used by those who possessed more than they needed. Of course, then you're moving into socialism or communism on one level while maintaining a democratic social system. I'm not sure anything like that would be workable in the long-term or workable on a national scale...given human nature.

[zynner]

Athena --

I have no clue what you mean by the word "democracy."

It usually is defined as majority rule, or rule by the people.

What is your definition of the word (just a definition, without any historical references)?

~ zynner

[zynner]

Quote by: Isherwood A democratic society would not have to be capitalistic. If currency could be democratized, it couldn't become a tool to be used by those who possessed more than they needed. Of course, then you're moving into socialism or communism on one level while maintaining a democratic social system. I'm not sure anything like that would be workable in the long-term or workable on a national scale...given human nature.

I don’t think the USA is a capitalist economy anymore. I think it is a mixed economy (part capitalist, part socialist, part fascist, mostly mercantilist).

I think the USA was able to maintain a capitalist economy when it was able to maintain its system of liberty. Along with the devolution into a defacto democracy came the devolution into a mixed economy. The capitalist USA was the greatest force of economic gain in world history. Capitalism should be honored, not vilified as it so often is today.

Once the rich can have their wealth stolen from the masses via democracy, you can be sure that the rich will take counter-measures to protect themselves. That is what we see today.

And it happens in socialist Europe, too. Witness the oppressive laws against employers and the goings on in France over employer/employee relations. Also, witness the unemployment and stagnant economies. When the rich cannot utilize their resources within an economy, everyone suffers. Democracy moves a society in that direction.

Communist economies, of course, tend towards dictators or oligarchs because somebody has to make the decisions that keep everybody dirt poor.

Capitalism is the only economic system that does not mismatch supply and demand, which is why it’s the only one that works in the long run. And liberty is the only political system that supports capitalism.

Democracy only devolves into a free-for-all.

~ zynner

[Jack]

liberty is the only political system that supports capitalism.

Yet China is becoming financially significant to the rest of the world through an increased practice of capitalism. I'm not convinced that capitalism can only exist under liberty. Then again, any country that is by and large bankrupt cannot support a true capitalistic society. Liberty can exist under either wealth or poverty.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Isherwood I'm not convinced that capitalism can only exist under liberty.

And why would you be? Capitalism places restrictions on liberty in order to function.

Grandpa h.

[Suburbanite]

Athena the way you think of philosophy as a particular strand of doctrines like a macaroni necklace, all haphazardly tied to the same string is no longer necissary. Philosophy in its traditional sense has been dead for awhile. Analytical philosophy is simply retarded. And let just leaves deconstructuralist philosophers who just don't think there is a thing called "philosophy". Contemporary philosophy (Rorty, Derrida) has since become somewhat more analogous to literature; whereas analytical philosophy (what you call simply "philosophy") is a lot harder to actually define than you might realize.

[zynner]

Quote by: Isherwood I'm not convinced that capitalism can only exist under liberty.

When I use the term "capitalism," I am specifically referring to a laissez-faire economy: the government has no ability to hand out favors to anyone.

So, if you have a government that hands out favors to big oil, for example, it is not "`capitalist," but mercantilist or fascist. If the government hands out favors to the poor, it is socialist or communist.

Capitalism is the free state of economics. Likewise, liberty is the free state of politics. One goes hand-in-hand with the other.

China is not a capitialist economy, though it has moved away from a pure form of communism into a mixed kind of economy. And what are we seeing? A better life than what the people had before.

Then again, any country that is by and large bankrupt cannot support a true capitalistic society. Liberty can exist under either wealth or poverty.

When you say a "country" is "bankrupt," I take that to mean you are talking about the government that exists within that "country" as being fiscally bankrupt. Such a condition cannot exist in a true laissez-faire economy because the government will not have enormous amounts of expenditures.

However, in an economy and political system in which the government taxes and spends as a means to buy power and control the people, bankruptcy is likely to be the end result. A defacto bankruptcy is what brought down the USSR and what made China change paths. The USA could very well be the next giant down that road.

It was only when the system of liberty eroded that allowed the system of capitalism to erode in the USA. Once that happens, it becomes only matter of time before the same path is followed as all others throughout history.

~ zynner

[grandpa]

Quote by: zynner When I use the term "capitalism," I am specifically referring to a laissez-faire economy: the government has no ability to hand out favors to anyone. So, if you have a government that hands out favors to big oil, for example, it is not "`capitalist," but mercantilist or fascist.

Favors are vulgar, yet they will happen to create advantages and incentives for the dominant system. I agree that it's essentially fascist, but I see no need to not call it capitalism.

Grandpa h.

[zynner]

Quote by: grandpa I agree that it's essentially fascist, but I see no need to not call it capitalism.

OK, but just understand that when *I* use the term "capitalism," I am talking about laissez-faire capitalism. Today's US economy is not that particular kind of economy. It's a mix of capitalism/socialism/fascism/mercantilism.

In laissez-faire capitalism, there are no handouts or favors from the government at all, so you would not see the corporate welfare problems we see today.

~ zynner

[Athena]

Quote by: zynner Isherwood -- Thanks. Regarding the democracy and money thing, I am wondering if it is really possible to have democracy without money influence of control. People today tend to denounce the "rich, white man" from 200 years ago as being racist and sexist. But think about it from their perspective. Let's say you are a rich, white man AND you are in a democracy. What will likely happen? You will have your wealth voted away from you, that's what. So, to protect yourself, you will argue that only "certain" people should have a vote. After all, if the poor can vote to take the wealth of the rich, then *everybody* will be poor. What will that accomplish? If you are not able to persuade others that only "certain" people should have the vote, then what are your options? You will have to buy the legislature. Ultimately, you will probably throw in the towel and just say, "What the hell?" and you will jump into the free-for-all yourself and get as much tax money flowing your way as the farmers who get paid to grow no crops or the welfare moms who get paid to have babies do. Democracy becomes a free-for-all and I don't see any way around it. So, I think that is why the "rich, white men" from 200 years ago were not only against democracy but also why they were against universal democracy. Not saying they were morally justified, but I can see where they were coming from. I also agree that democracy and liberty really have very little, if anything, to do with each other. Sometime when you get a chance, check out Dubai. It's basically a monarchy, but considered a very free society (not what most Westerners think of as an Arab country). A benign dictator or king who leaves everybody in peace to live their own lives as they see fit is probably a much better society than a democratically-elected free-for-all government that does the bidding of those who would like to oppress others. One has nothing to do with the other (democracy and liberty); it's just that the Founding Fathers had nothing else to go on at the time. ~ zynner

While you are focused on personal wealth, the economy will collapse. What do you have to say about that?