USA a false democracy?

Apart from the fact it doesn't matter anyway (whether the Constitution says the US is a "republic" - by virtue of being a federation of states - or a "representative democracy" or whatever, because government by 'sovereignty of the individual' is delusional, if freedom from powerful self-interested individuals is to be implemented "for a more perfect union" and "the common welfare" of citizens.

See how ideology determines interpretation of the Constitution?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Note my bolded.

Quite 'socialist', actually...

(And I am amused you can't point out to me where the Constitution says the US is a republic....)

 

Oh it DOES especially after you posted

Why do you assume I can't. I asked you are you denying it does and asked have you ever read the Constitution. If you have and therefore do not deny it states we are a Republic then I have no obligation to prove it to you. So are you denying the Constitution establishes the United States as a Republic? You keep dodging whether or not you are a citizen here.

And BTW the preamble has not bearing law, the body does, the Articles establish the government on how it works.

 

Because you want to promote your false "sovereignty of the individual" ideology, and you think a "republican" constitution gives you cover for your false ideology. eg "the common welfare" doesn't mean of the people but of an abstraction known as 'states'.

The preamble sets the reasons for adoption of the constitution, and its goals.

Pity its quite socialist...

 

I think we have different definitions of socialism, but yes, any government that is created is going to have at least SOME powers. In the USA, when the USA existed, there was a constitution which enumerated specific powers that were to belong to the particular branches of federal government, and any other powers not enumerated therein were to remain with the States (and the people of those States).

In the SOTC, SOTNY, and SODC, there are no constitutional bounds. There are only oligarchs who tell you what you can and cannot do. You are no longer at liberty to pursue happiness or anything else that is not approved by the oligarchy.

 

Don't put words into my mouth I have made no such assertions.

Are you denying that the Constitution establishes the United States as a Republic, yes or no?

And has no legal standing, the body of the Constitution establishes our government

Again are you a US citizen why do you keep dodging the question?

 

There is only one definition of Socialism (from Merriam-Webster):

And the above simply defines a condition that exists no where the world, with the sole exception of China and North Korea. Yes, all property in China is in the possession of the Chinese Communist government - the Chinese may own their homes but they do not own the ground upon which they were built. That belongs to the Chinese Communist government.

Of course, some would say that such is just a "technicality". But, I, for one, would not care to own any property in China ...

 

WHERE THE HURT BEGINS

I can understand your malcontent with the way government is run. But, I don't think "chucking it all" is the proper solution either.

The population density of any part of the US has a profound effect upon how local governments are run. In the larger sense, your retirement is a benefit of the US government. It will never stop until you die. That is, if you can make it to the age of 65! It is at the daily-end of the spectrum where the hurt begins. Typically with buying food and the rent for accommodations. And, in that regard, Uncle Sam is not the "greatest nation on earth". Not by a long shot!

See here: Almost half of US families can't afford basics like rent and food

Quote:

OK, OK! That piece above is dated in May of 2018! Just before Covid hit us. Since, things have become even worse. With or without Covid the situation for the poor in America is NOT GOING TO CHANGE. Because what is needed is not just stop-gap measures at the local-level! Whyzzat!

Because the problem is national-in-nature and the Federal Government - to find an equitable solution to abject poverty for everybody - must blend with the state to provide it. Uncle Sam must be the "backbone" of any provision to avoid Abject Poverty in America ... !

YEAH, YEAH - ENOUGH OF UNCLE SAM IS ENOUGH!

That's what you think?

The truth is that American governments (states and Federal) have not done enough. But, the national expenditure on the DoD increases every damn year!

Still, America is a nation-of-human-beings and when they are suffering from economic difficulties it behooves THE STATES (including the US government) to address the problem AND FIX IT! The states cannot handle it all alone.

The point being this: One half of Uncle Sam's "Discretionary Budget" is being spent today on the DoD. And, where-in-hell is the war?

Poverty has become an Acute National Problem and it's not just food and accommodations. It is the entire spectrum that brings a human being up to "decent self-preservation for the family". And THAT means a much-lower-cost and decent post-secondary education! For everyone to obtain a decent job in a world that is advancing by leaps-and-bounds into the Services Age ... !

 

It exists in Nicaragua and Cuba as well

....particularly since you say it is impossible.

 

OK I'll leave off the last bit and go with what I DO know: ie

You want to promote your false "sovereignty of the individual" ideology"; and the fact you can't reveal where the constitution says the US is a republic....or a democracy, for that matter.... is just a smoke-screen to enable you to dispute the words in the title of the OP.

IOW, you think you can avoid facing the problems inherent in US democracy by simply stating the US is a not a democracy but a republic. Meanwhile you are hiding behind your delusional 'sovereignty of the individual' ideology which is incompatible with ANY form of government whose sovereignty, by definition, overrules individual sovereignty.

Addressed above. meanwhile your delusional ideology is destroying the US; Trump has decided to hang around...my God. that's just what the country needs to heal its hyper-partisan divisions.

And you can't say whether it's a democracy or a republic...

Irrelevant to the debate: I'm not dodging anything , while you are hiding behind a smoke screen...

 

It's a matter of constitutional choice, rather than constitutional bounds. eg the sovereign national government, overseeing a public and a private sector, could authorize its own reserve bank and treasury to spend money into existence, alongside money creation ('ex nihilo', when they write loans for "credit-worthy" customers) in private sector banks, so long as the resources and labor are available on which to spend the money (to avoid inflation), in both sectors combined. Are bankers oligarchs? In this system, the electorate gets a choice on how they want the nation's resources are to be developed, other than by blind (Invisiblae hand" markets overseen by an "independent" reserve bank.

A long way of saying a public sector subject to the electorate's choices need not be an "oligarchy".

 

Socialism is an economic system in which wealth is taken from those who have it and redistributed to those who don't have it (via an authoritarian government).

 

You would not know Socialism if it bit you on your backside.

Moving right along ...

 

STOP putting words in my mouth and claiming I have promoted something I have not.

I have stated one issue, the Constitution says we are a Republic NOT a Democracy. Are you denying that yes or no?

No you have dodged and danced and claimed I was in error in saying so.

I have been quite clear we are and as stated by the Constitution a republic, ARE YOU DENYING THAT? Yes or no?

Yes it is relevant because if you aren't a US citizen and never studied US civics 101 I might better understand your confusion. I asked have you ever read the Constitution, no answer, whether you are a citizen here, no answer.

Here since you obviously have not even taken the time to actually read the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 4
SECTION 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Democracy is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Now you know.

 

That's your issue, not mine.

 

Well AT LAST........ you could have revealed that ages ago. And like I said ages ago, the reference is to the states, not to individuals......a mistake***(see below) made by the founders, borne out of a delusion that individual sovereignty is compatible with a more perfect union of individuals, though it might be compatible with a more perfect union of a collection of states (while tolerating massive inequality within each state, which will obviously NOT produce a "more perfect union" or "the general welfare" for the individuals concerned).

So what is a Republican government?

[quick google]

"A republican form of government is a type of government in which the citizens of a country have an active role in the affairs of the government, and the government is not headed by a hereditary ruler such as a king."

well duh, could also be a democracy...even a false democracy - or if you insist: a REPUBLIC - in any case wracked by continuing hyper-partisanship (it'll be game on as Trump recovers and unleashes his troops once again...)

***The US constitution was ratified in 1788, before the industrial revolution was under way (James Watt first built a steam engine in 1770). So the founders could not have foreseen how government needs to change as the technology of production changes - hence, eg, Marx's necessary contribution in the 1850's.

And Conservatives, beholden as they are to the past, are still hanging onto every word in this 18th century constitution...

 

So you AT LAST admit you have never read the Constitution but then come and argue about what type of government it dictates.

Article 1 Section 4
SECTION 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

A Republic and in this case Federal Republic, NOT a Democracy as GUARNATIED by the Constitution.

Again are you a citizen of the US who never learned about the Constitution and our form of government, you know what we call Civics 101, or or foreigner to my country who is arguing matters for which you have had no education?

 

And it shows.

 

As normally happens when foreigners to the United States try to critique our government and telling US citizens how it should be changed or just discuss it in general it is from a MSM position. First I can think of no citizen in any other country who could possible tell me how my country would be better if we were more like them and their form of government. However I do not tell them what they should do in THEIR government because I would be speaking for ignor......... opps sorry can't use the word here, speaking from lack of knowledge about their system and that it is THEIR business not mine.

Here was a case of a fundamental principle stated in the found document of the government. A simple historical document which establishes the basis. Anyone who had studied it would know it says what I said. It's not something that has to be proven it should be a known fact to anyone discussing it.

 

I saw a tongue-in-cheek version of "Dracula," I think on Netflix, in which a nun with superlative intelligence questioned him aggressively. Sometime during the production, Dracula remarks, (I think I remember this exactly, but it is close anyway); "Ah, yes, the tyranny of democracy."

When I hear people decry other political systems as "undemocratic," I think, "Be careful what you wish for." Or, as Santa Teresa d'Avila once remarked, "More tears have been shed for wishes granted than for wishes denied." (And I do not correct the dangling participle as I say this to myself, though I do think of Mother Agatha who told us NEVER to end a sentence with "for.")

The problem as I see it is that too many people, (not me though), are too self-interested, selfish and stupid to make good policy decisions which benefit the mass of the people. You can see it in your own life--the neighbor next door chooses to paint their house pink, with a green door. We are all hostage to bad decisions and if you consider there are what, 7.5 billion people on the planet, imagine the risk we take trusting others to make good decisions which benefit most people. No, I think I will pass and keep my fingers and legs cross hoping that other people make NO decisions, because that is safer for me, you see.

Even the more intelligent ones among the ancient Athenians during their period of "democracy," found that the masses could be swayed to make very poor decisions and were terribly influenced by manipulative demagogues. If you doubt that, then surely you have seen an entire nation victimized by a demagogue in a republic which prides itself on its political system. You know, it reminds me of comments about the unjust justice system--"True, it is imperfect, but it is the best system we have." Gaslighting.

 

No it doesn't; what it shows is your delusional "sovereignty of the individual' ideology renders you incapable of critiquing the constitution.

eg: Article 1 Section 4
SECTION 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

And like I said: "the reference is to the states, not to individuals......a mistake***(see below) made by the founders, borne out of a delusion that individual sovereignty is compatible with a more perfect union of individuals, though it might be compatible with a more perfect union of a collection of states (while tolerating massive inequality within each state, which will obviously NOT produce a "more perfect union" or "the general welfare" for the individuals concerned)." ** governance - for the people - needs to change as the technology of production changes - hence, eg, Marx's necessary contribution in the 1850's".

But you can't respond, because YOU want to get your grubby hands on as much of the nation's output as YOU can.. forget about anyone else.

 

A historical document which you are not capable of critiquing, for the reasons outlined to TOG 6 above (post #245).

Note you did not offer YOUR definition of "republican government", only that the Constitution "will guarantee a republican form of government to every state".

Why can't you explain what this "republican form" is, which is guaranteed to the states?

A quick google search may provide you some assistance.

 

At least we don’t have any Queens, Kings or Princes prancing around like they own the place. You gotta give us that. That said I believe we should scrap the EC and have equal representation in the Senate as well as the House. Our system is very unfair and antiquated.

 

To be fair, neither does the UK ("owning the place"; Divine Right of Kings is long dead)....but you are correct re the rest of your post.

 

BIG MONEY WITH A PAYBACK

It was a good first-try at "organizing" how should be managed the government of the First Free Nation in the World.

But nostalgia is never a good-enough political option in running a country. The country is not being managed the way it should, and BigMoney still influences far too many decisions in LaLaLand on the Potomac.

Besides, the mistakes made are horrendous. Nobody in their right mind would accept that the popular-vote against the winner be combined with those of the winner and published as the veritable vote for the presidency within the state!

And it has worked that way for far too long ...

 

Speaking of BIG MONEY (and how democracies deal with it):

The Trump Tax Reform, As Seen in the U.S. Balance of Payments Data | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)

"Yet, judging from the balance of payments data, it didn't get rid of the incentive for firms to offshore profits to low-tax jurisdictions. The global minimum is too low—and there are too many incentives to shift tangible assets abroad".

And now Trump is planning a comeback which will mean the numbers in congress will remain evenly divided and antagonistic; the US is doomed.
(link)
Trump accuses Biden of ‘classic globalist betrayal’ over plans to raise taxes to pay for infrastructure (msn.com)

Trump accuses Biden of ‘classic globalist betrayal’ over plans to raise taxes to pay for infrastructure