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.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (20)
sorted by:
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?