You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Constitution of the Libertarian Social Democratic Republic
But don't you think that Democracy is flawed due to the money behind each candidate, and that each candidate can easily be selected by hidden powers to be their agent.
Bush and Kerry were both Skull and Bonesman after all.
I get the impression that you didn't actually read the whole post before commenting. The model I propose: (1) does away with career politicians, making candidates be chosen randomly via sortition, (2) makes representatives subject to recall [actually would automatically replace them if they ever got unfavorable ratings in the poles], and (3) allows the people to directly veto laws passed by the legislature. So, I think I did address the flaws of conventional representative democracy.
I did read most @ekklesiagora . To be honest I am just so disillusioned and think that regardless of the political system the powers that be / international finance/ the roundtable groups and corporations will rule it regardless. What is the point in suggesting changes when they will be manipulated by players far more skilled and with deeper pockets than ourselves.
We aren't a democracy. We are a Republic. It was better than a democracy had we followed what the founders laid out for us. This is the best short tool I have seen that explains the difference. ( Had we followed the constitution, we wouldn't have multinational corporations running things) You shouldn't be forced to have a bank account to tax either. Good lord! Economic illiteracy is what is destroying us. You used to make interest and the bank paid you to use the money. Right now they are using something called revision which all goes back to my other comment about allowing a private banking institution to issue our currency. It would be fine and also debt free if our money said US Treasury Note instead of Federal Reserve Note. Also check out www.usdebtclock.org Hopefully you'll see the problems.
This video is inaccurate and extremely biased.
Firstly, "republic" in the sense that the founding fathers used the term, means "representative democracy," so it is deceptive to say that 'America is a republic, not a democracy.' A republic is a type of democracy. Even more anarchic forms of democracy, like democratic confederalism or the model of the Spanish anarchists, is technically a form of republicanism.
The way that this video defines republic is flat-out wrong. The video states that a republic is "one where the government is limited by law." That's not a republic proper. That's true only of a constitutional republic. And, that definition also fits forms of government that are clearly not republican: e.g. constitutional monarchies are limited by law, but may not have any sort of representation for the people. A constitutional monarchy is, however, NOT necessarily a republic.
The left-right spectrum originated with the French Revolution and alludes to the fact that radicals (republicans, anarchists, socialists) sat on the left in parliament, while conservatives (aristocrats, monarchists) were on the right. So, to be on the left generally meant to be a supporter of radical democratic reforms or radical economic reforms. Technically, Bastiat was on the left, even though he was a free-market libertarian.
I don't currently identify as an anarchist, but I'm quite familiar with anarchist theory in general, and this video inaccurately represents anarchism. Many anarchists (e.g. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Murray Bookchin) were/are radical republicans (i.e. they advocate a form of representative or delegative democracy).
This video is riddled with inaccuracies and demonstrates a clear failure on the part of the producer/narrator to grasp basic concepts of political theory and political philosophy.