Democracy Vs Capitalism

I disagree. In the U.S. laws passed by and/or supported by the majority are struck down in court when they violate the Constitution. Happens fairly often. The courts don't always get them right, but they still do it.

 

One aspect of an indirect democracy is that the representatives, in theory at least, are capable of recognizing and dismissing arguments that benefit only part of the constituency unfairly. The Founding Fathers expected the representatives to be intelligent, educated men who would deliver their votes in the best interests of the governed, not necessarily according to their stated wishes.

 

When I brought the term "indirect" into discussion, I wasn't referring to representative democracy, but rather indirect election of representatives.

 

Indirect elections were invented when States became too large to be directly managed through the electorate,200 milions of voters cannot vote every day every single act, it's impossible, but they can elect representatives and in certain cases recall them, however the US are a democratic repubblic, or you would consider it an "undemocratic repubblic"?

This has to be proven, in any case the representatives could be recalled if the electors didn't like what they were doing, and if they aren't they could always lose the next elections to be replaced by others who would do what the electors wanted.

That also work in any other constitutional countries as well, but you need constitutional court to decide if it's illegal, for instance in the U.S. slavery was legal until the 1860s even if in the constitution is written that all the men are created equal.

 

This is true. But it does mean the majority can't just do whatever it likes. There are checks there. These checks don't always function as best they might, but a system that didn't have it and relied solely on the will of the majority would be bad imo

 

You are completely misunderstanding what I said. When I say "indirect elections," I am not talking about representative democracy. Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures, not directly by voters - this is indirect. The President is not elected by voters, but by the elected members of the electoral college - this is also indirect. Today we have direct election of Senators - part of representative democracy.

The United States today is a democratic republic; at its founding I would not consider it democratic, because of the degree to which the franchise was limited.

The Constitution says no such thing.

 

Which one would you like, a kick or a punch, lol

I never got the logic behind that question. Why not just go with the idea that works best at the time instead of a set group of principles. Things change and having to chose between one and the other is like having to chose between cramming in a square or a circle when what fits is a star peg.

Besides, I think the basic theory of democracy is ridiculous. Rule by the people is laughable, and fair representation equally so. Some will agree and some will disagree. If you chose one way, you ignore the wishes of the other people. If the nation were split between three solutions and you had to chose one, the other 66% of the nation are ignored. I don't think democracy gets far past the "we get to vote" part.

 

I'm sorry, but where did you get that idea? The United States was a representational democracy from its founding, not because of pragmatic considerations, but because they did not consider everyone fully competent to get an equal vote. Citizens, which was also a clearly defined subset of the population, were permitted equal votes for a representative, and that representative was to speak for the people he represented in matters of policy. Being an elected official implied a responsibility to stay informed, and election terms were the check to not retain someone who had not performed to the satisfaction of the people he represented.

I can safely say "he", because at the time, only men set policy. No women, no slaves, no criminals, no insane, and no children. That was as equal as they were willing to go for at the time, but it still was the most progressive form of government by consent in the world of their contemporaries.

 

A small nitpick, but a citizen was not guaranteed the vote. Women were citizens under the 1790 Naturalization Act.

 

Citizenship was a necessary condition for voting, but not a sufficient one. Your correction is correct, although the Naturalization Act you quote was enacted after the structure of the governement was in place.

 

I am not talking about the US in particular, but in general terms: direct democracies existed in the past, for instance in the cities/states of Greece, or among the german tribes. It works when the electoral body is small, but when states grew larger it was impractical to vote on every issue, and therefore they delegate an assembly the decisions. That's basically History, not my idea.

 

There are a few exceptions to this rule. While Switzerland is a representative democracy, it's my understanding that they do a lot of referenda.

 

1) I understood what you meant but I was talking about "indirect democracy" in opposition to "direct democracy", direct election of representatives is still "indirect democracy".

2)True, it was in the declaration of Independence:

Still, the point is still valid: that sentence was inspired by Mazzei and Beccaria, but the mythological figures of the founding fathers didn't have a problem with slavery...

You are correct, our swiss neighbours could be considered a direct democracy but just a cantonal level, not confederate. I heard that in some villages they also "vote" the right of new citizens (people who purchased a property there) to be members of the community.

Still, we are talking about small villages on the Alps.

 

You clearly did not understand what I meant, because what you said about indirect democracy was not a logical response to what I said. But whatever.

 

The premise of democracy versus capitalism is a valid one. Capitalism, as an economic model, does erode democracy, or at the very least can seriously threaten it. In any capitalist society where there is also a democratic form of goverment, there is a danger that the democratic system that is in place can be effectively overruled by a capital-owning aristocracy. Where do all of those mega-millionaire fortunes go when a big fat cat capital owner dies? To his or her children, and their children, and on and on through the generations. Social mobility is possible, but over time becomes increasingly difficult because all of the industries become monopolized. There comes a point when new technologies and new innovations are not being introduced fast enough, and a capitalist system will stagnate and collapse in on itself. We may all be heading in that direction right now. Also, many people make the mistake of thinking that a capitalist system promotes democracy, when that is clearly not true. Look at China, now possessing a fully capitalist economic model, but at the same time maintaining a free-speech crushing, liberties-smashing authortiarian government.

If there was a choice between the two, whenever they conflict, I will always choose democracy over capitalism.

 

Society is always choosing between the two. Democracy is very often the loser in the US and contrary to the opinion echoed in here, it is the minority interest that wins.

That's not a danger, that's reality. The world was almost plunged into severe economic distress because a minority voice in the US actually had to argue which social programs have to be defunded in order to keep the wealthy from being taxed. How disgusting is that?

 

Taking a rather wider view, historically, capitalism is an engine of democracy, and, democracy an engine of capitalism. It is very obvious why this is so: private ownership of things (including capital, talents, ideas and a work ethic), means that folk get to choose what to do with those things. If that choice does not exist (if you do not live in a free society) then the ownership ceases to be private.

China is capitalistic on the margins. Minds and bodies are still, in many cases, effectively, publicly owned. As, and if, capitalism becomes entrenched, so China will become, perforce, less authoritarian.

Naturally, democracies are well advised to keep a lid on certain features of capitalism : corporate power/ monopolies might need to checked; the viability of the capitalist model as it applies to health care and pharmaceuticals and weapons and so on needs to be addressed etc etc

More profoundly perhaps, a capitalist system makes producers and consumers of us all. It might be said that participation chokes the human spirit and tends to undermine brotherly society etc etc. There are other questions that may be asked:


Capitalism generates wealth rather handily: is it possible to persuade the generators to share that wealth about a bit, when, perhaps, the generation of it was characterized by selfish endeavour, and the spreading of it might be thought to be characterized by selfless endeavour?

Is it possible to participate in the system without becoming a ****?

To have or to be?

etc etc

 

It's simply historically inaccurate to claim that more capitalistic = more democratic. Pinochet's regime in Chile was both more authoritarian and more capitalistic than Allende's.

 

Nit-picking doesn't appeal to me. The generalisation is sound.

 

18th century France was capitalistic, and it took a revolution to make it a democracy. If capitalism and democracy were so linked I don't think France would have needed a guillotine.

 

What do you think gave rise to that urge for a more democratic society?

 

The ideas of the Enlightenment. Freedom, Liberalism, Citizenship and Inalienable rights. I don't see how an economic system can have anything to do with these ideas.

 

I can see how it might.

Consider that in a capitalist system, the individual has the potential (realizable to varying degrees depending on the society) to improve himself through his own ingenuity and selling of some product or service.

To realize that improvement, they need the freedom to pursue it, and they need certain rights to be recognized (among them property rights) to ensure they will be able to continue. So i can see where a capitalistic society would at least lead to liberty and property rights, or a desire for those within society.

 

Not really, no. More authoritarian countries that were mostly capitalistic (or currently are authoritarian and capitalistic): Imperial Germany, Singapore, South Korea, Republic of China (Taiwan), the United Arab Emirates, etc.

 

Ideas don't alter history. People animated by ideas possibly do.

Who were the people pressing for change? Why then?