Really? In a democracy is it really necessary to have representatives when we can all instantly represent ourselves? I've been thinking about this ever since the internet poped up, anyone can instantly communicate with anyone instantly. Why keep such a corrupt, evil system around, when we could create something new that actually reflects the will of the people? In my opinion it is time to get rid of so called representatives and start representing ourselves.
Comments (20)
sorted by:
We do not live in a democracy.
We live in a constitutional republic where in you elect representatives to represent your interests.
We live in a representational republic. Democracies turn into mob rule and have failed every time they have been tried.
The foundation of a republic is rule of law. The checks and balances of the branches of our government help to insure that laws passed over time cannot infringe on the rights of the people defined in our Constitution.
Generally, the idiots that say we live in a democracy are socialists that want to destroy our country in favor of a one-world totalitarian government patterned after communist China.
More importantly: Those representatives have LIMITS on what they can do.
I do t this this is a constitutional republic in how we act. The corruption is in sane. But yea agree with what you are saying
The issue is NOT democracy. A direct democracy can ALSO ruin your life.
That is why the American founders rejected the idea of a democracy.
A republic has representatives, who (in theory) will be more level-headed, which should reduce the mob mentality of a democracy.
But they didn't stop there. They created not just a republic, but a constitutional republic.
Greece (Athens) had the first democracy.
Rome had the first republic.
Amerca had the first constitutional republic.
The Constitution is a LIMIT on what even those representatives can do, and those limitations are imposed by the People, so as to protect their natural ("fundamental" or "god-given") rights.
The Bill of Rights has a Preamble. Most people don't even know it exists, much less have ever read it. But reading it makes it quite clear what the intent of the founders was:
The problem is, We the People, over the course of several generations, have NOT been keeping them accountable.
We have let them slide.
Apathy is part of "democracy," too.
This is why the Brunson case is so interesting.
Oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Does it MEAN something ... or not?
do we actually have any???...they all lie their ass of to get in office just so they can go with their own program and ignore all the people that put them there....so whats new??
Our Constitution, as amended, is the overarching authority. Our Constitution governs everything else. We are a Republic.
We don't. We don't need them, they need us.
Here's an interesting question to ask. Do you have the right to murder or take money from somebody (taxation is LEGAL, not lawful, theft?
So now ask yourself; If you don't have that right, do you then have the right to "elect" somebody and give them these "rights" that you yourself don't have in the first place?
And this is how Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency in 2016
I prefer not to be governed by others, but since it's unavoidable I need to have my representatives of my ideal put four
No. We need to do to government what Elon did to twitter except twitter does a shit-ton more than government.
The federal government needs to be reduced to 4 people. We need to vote on issues and to have a government that looks nothing like what we have had. Local government gone, state government 2 people on 12 hour shifts. Fuck giving power to these scum.
The founding father's constitutional republic has failed to stop totalitarianism. It does not work, do not try to rebuild it.
the USA... IS NOT... a democracy. democracy is MOB RULE, tyranny.
the problem is, we don't know those that we elect to represent us. the enemy, at this point in the game, controls both sides (hegelian dialect)
the other problem is, in regards to responsibility of upholding a constitutional republic, is that very, very, very few people actually attempt to hold these representatives accountable for their actions.
most people are complacent in that, they willingly give up their spots as watchdog. there is no accountability.
it also doesn't help when the people that are being elected, are being LOBBIED.
it doesn't help when the people being elected, swear OATHS under PENALTY OF BLOOD (ie; Freemasonry) to a lodge & doctrine that supersedes their oath to the country.
They are the sole cause of global warming 🤣
Because the people are evil.
This is the problem of government. If we had angels, we can make them kings, but no one is an angel, and God isn't sending any to govern us.
The balance the Founding Fathers advocated for wasn't just a balance of powers, but a system whereby wicked men would find themselves in an impossible position where they cannot advance their interest without advancing the interests of the people at large.
The idea of a representative was that each would come from a community of about 30,000 people. This meant that they would be known by the community. You can't steal these sorts of elections easily, and the power would be distributed among a large group of people, each beholden to their group.
The modern representative represents, on average, about a million people. No one knows who their representatives actually are, and in order to get elected, they need money, and so they can be bought and sold at market prices, just like advertising campaigns.
I would prefer we implement the following changes to our system of government to bring it closer to the balance we had before:
Honestly, we should do something like have 10 families elect a representative, and these representatives do all the work of electing higher officers, judges, etc... You just elect that one person and that's it. That person becomes an expert in the government and works together with their peers to make sure your 10 families are protected.
I get where you're coming from, OP. With advanced communications, representation, at least in the House, is not entirely necessary. Everybody jumping all over you are right to fear a pure democracy. But I would need to delve further into your thinking: would we still have separation of powers? Would the U.S. Senate still be representatives of the states?
Is there a meeting in the middle if we keep our congressmen, but we do speedy plebiscites with our cellphones before they cast any vote?
a) RE (respond to) PRESENT (presented by) implies as perceiving partial to perceivable whole...not to the suggestions of others who call themselves representatives.
b) choice can only exist within the center of balance aka in-between need (perceivable inspiration) or want (suggested information).
c) one cannot give away free will of choice...only ignore ones ones choice within perceivable for the suggested choices by others. This represents choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law...the inversion of perceivable balance (action) to perceiving choice (reaction) natural law.
d) the industrialization of contract law through mass suggestion is called RELIGION; noun (Latin religio) - "to bind anew", which represents choice to choice (bind anew) over balance to choice (natural bond).