Fox News host, Tucker Carlson, advocates mob rule government

[INVAR]

---------------------------------
There is no such 'critter' as uniquely American Conservatism, as
our heritage evolved from the early colonists who were English.
Principled Conservatism evolved from the Natural Law and had
nothing to do w/the Judeo-Christian Ethic which emerged several
thousand years later.

We will certainly disagree on that note.

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death". - Proverbs 14:12

[Absalom]

We will certainly disagree on that note.

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death". - Proverbs 14:12

------------------------------
TBR, at its core, is an opinion forum
and all are entitled to their own.
Stay well.

[johnwk]

------------------------
Appreciate the compliment.
My purpose was to provoke discussion;
rather than the typical urinary contest.

Provoke discussion?  I thought the opening discussion was centered around Tucker Carlson's referral to our system of government as a "democracy" rather that the "Republican Form of Government" which our Constitution declares we are guaranteed in Article 4, Section 4.

Having spent perhaps thousands of hours doing a research paper back in the 1980's and 90's at the University of Maryland regarding the founding of our country, I can confirm many of our founders saw "democracy" as a vile form of government.


And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”?  Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they



…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."
 
And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."

And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: " Democracy never lasts long” . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’"


And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying "A republic, if you can keep it."

Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities,  have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty.   And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government" intentionally guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.


Thank you, but no thank you Tucker Carlson, for your sophomoric constant references asserting our system is a democracy, which is nothing more than mob rule government.


JWK

 
Civil rights ought not be based upon the perverted desires of sexual deviants who now impinge upon the inalienable right of mankind being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

[johnwk]

We will certainly disagree on that note.

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death". - Proverbs 14:12

I second your disagreement on that note!


JWK

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

[Absalom]

Provoke discussion?  I thought the opening discussion was centered around Tucker Carlson's referral to our system of government as a "democracy" rather that the "Republican Form of Government" which our Constitution declares we are guaranteed in Article 4, Section 4.

Having spent perhaps thousands of hours doing a research paper back in the 1980's and 90's at the University of Maryland regarding the founding of our country, I can confirm many of our founders saw "democracy" as a vile form of government.


And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”?  Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they



…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."
 
And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."

And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: " Democracy never lasts long” . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’"


And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying "A republic, if you can keep it."

Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities,  have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty.   And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government" intentionally guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.


Thank you, but no thank you Tucker Carlson, for your sophomoric constant references asserting our system is a democracy, which is nothing more than mob rule government.


JWK

 
Civil rights ought not be based upon the perverted desires of sexual deviants who now impinge upon the inalienable right of mankind being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

----------------------------------
Agree that Madison and Adams were original minds whose opinions are worthy.
Also, your thousands of hours of research has obviously endowed you w/a talent
for parroting references. So congratulations are appropriate.
Sadly, what it did not do is endow you the ability to think for yourself.
Equating Athenian (Classical) Democracy w/'mob rule government' is
beyond stupid and as brilliant as Madison and Adams were, Pericles was their superior!!! 

[Sanguine]

----------------------------------
Agree that Madison and Adams were original minds whose opinions are worthy.
Also, your thousands of hours of research has obviously endowed you w/a talent
for parroting references. So congratulations are appropriate.
Sadly, what it did not do is endow you the ability to think for yourself.
Equating Athenian (Classical) Democracy w/'mob rule government' is
beyond stupid and as brilliant as Madison and Adams were, Pericles was their superior!!!

This is a great example of what is a big problem here.  Instead of commenting on the issue(s), you cross the line and go personal.  And, I'm not picking on you solely - there's a lot of "blah, blah, blah and you're stupid too".  It just hit me when I ready your reply.

And, I'm going to make an exception to a personal rule of mine: "never say never".  I don't think anyone here should ever cross that line to the personal here.  Even on the off chance that some of our members actually know each other at a personal level, they shouldn't bring their personal arguments here on a public forum.  Never go personal.  Most of the members here don't, but it only takes a few to create a bad atmosphere.

OK, off my soapbox.

[johnwk]

----------------------------------
Agree that Madison and Adams were original minds whose opinions are worthy.
Also, your thousands of hours of research has obviously endowed you w/a talent
for parroting references. So congratulations are appropriate.
Sadly, what it did not do is endow you the ability to think for yourself.

If you are familiar with the fundamental rules of constitutional construction [determing what our constitution means] you would know "parroting references" from our founders, during our constitution's framing and ratification debates, is essential in determining what our Constitution means.  And I figured that out, all by myself! Have you?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean. 

[Absalom]

This is a great example of what is a big problem here.  Instead of commenting on the issue(s), you cross the line and go personal.  And, I'm not picking on you solely - there's a lot of "blah, blah, blah and you're stupid too".  It just hit me when I ready your reply.

And, I'm going to make an exception to a personal rule of mine: "never say never".  I don't think anyone here should ever cross that line to the personal here.  Even on the off chance that some of our members actually know each other at a personal level, they shouldn't bring their personal arguments here on a public forum.  Never go personal.  Most of the members here don't, but it only takes a few to create a bad atmosphere.

OK, off my soapbox.

-------------------------------------------------
Ok, stay on your soapbox before the curtain is drawn as the opening sentence, which
is at the core of my point and which I quoted verbatim, reads:

.....actually supports democracy in its classical sense-which is comparable to mob rule government-.....

Next I referenced classical democracy as that of the Greeks of Athens, per the Britannica.
In a later post I labeled the comment equating classical democracy w/mob rule government
as beyond stupid.
Let's cut to the chase here and you label the opening sentence??????????????????????????????

[TomSea]

This is a great example of what is a big problem here.  Instead of commenting on the issue(s), you cross the line and go personal.  And, I'm not picking on you solely - there's a lot of "blah, blah, blah and you're stupid too".  It just hit me when I ready your reply.

And, I'm going to make an exception to a personal rule of mine: "never say never".  I don't think anyone here should ever cross that line to the personal here.  Even on the off chance that some of our members actually know each other at a personal level, they shouldn't bring their personal arguments here on a public forum.  Never go personal.  Most of the members here don't, but it only takes a few to create a bad atmosphere.

OK, off my soapbox.

Sangria truly has a lot of integrity and I commend her. No one is perfect. Sometimes, it seems she doesn't say much to keep out of some of the dogfights.

[johnwk]

-------------------------------------------------
Ok, stay on your soapbox before the curtain is drawn as the opening sentence, which
is at the core of my point and which I quoted verbatim, reads:

.....actually supports democracy in its classical sense-which is comparable to mob rule government-.....

Next I referenced classical democracy as that of the Greeks of Athens, per the Britannica.
In a later post I labeled the comment equating classical democracy w/mob rule government
as beyond stupid.
Let's cut to the chase here and you label the opening sentence??????????????????????????????

 

JWK

“Liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, [but] it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view,” William F. Buckley

[Frank Cannon]

Sangria truly has a lot of integrity and I commend her.

That's not her name, but that is what she is loaded on most of the day.

[Sanguine]

That's not her name, but that is what she is loaded on most of the day.

Not true.  I'm trying to become a sophisticated scotch drinker.  I'm having moderate success so far.

[Frank Cannon]

Not true.  I'm trying to become a sophisticated scotch drinker.  I'm having moderate success so far.

Good to hear. You know me. I like high maintenance broads.

[ABX]

This has always bugged me when some get in a huff over the word Democracy. Democracy doesn't just mean mob rule, that's just how some describe one form. We are a Representative Constitutional Democracy- a Republic but still a type of Democracy in the truest and original definition of the word. What the OP implies Tucker states is a Direct Democracy (sometimes called 'mob rule' in the extreme sense). These aren't the only type of Democracies.  There are also Parliamentary Democracies (and Westminster Democracy unique to the UK and different from other Parliamentary), Monitory Democracies, Jacksonian Democracy (I'm concerned we are slipping into this. A Republic Democracy that centralizes most of its power into the Executive instead of Representatives), Demarchy, Populist Democracy (similar to 'mob rule' but bottom up with some representation) and so on...

No need to get fussy when one uses 'Democracy', it doesn't solely refer to 'mob rule'.

[Cyber Liberty]

This has always bugged me when some get in a huff over the word Democracy. Democracy doesn't just mean mob rule, that's just how some describe one form. We are a Representative Constitutional Democracy- a Republic but still a type of Democracy in the truest and original definition of the word. What the OP implies Tucker states is a Direct Democracy (sometimes called 'mob rule' in the extreme sense). These aren't the only type of Democracies.  There are also Parliamentary Democracies (and Westminster Democracy unique to the UK and different from other Parliamentary), Monitory Democracies, Jacksonian Democracy (I'm concerned we are slipping into this. A Republic Democracy that centralizes most of its power into the Executive instead of Representatives), Demarchy, Populist Democracy (similar to 'mob rule' but bottom up with some representation) and so on...

No need to get fussy when one uses 'Democracy', it doesn't solely refer to 'mob rule'.

That's why I liked reading the posts from @Absalom on this thread.  They were necessary to get a handle on the basic definitions of "Democracy."  To somebody who is sure of what he knows on the subject it may seem like it's getting in the weeds, but it has to happen so all the readers of this thread can get up to speed.

It takes a while with an open forum like this to get the hang and the patience of doing that.

[Sanguine]

This has always bugged me when some get in a huff over the word Democracy. Democracy doesn't just mean mob rule, that's just how some describe one form. We are a Representative Constitutional Democracy- a Republic but still a type of Democracy in the truest and original definition of the word. What the OP implies Tucker states is a Direct Democracy (sometimes called 'mob rule' in the extreme sense). These aren't the only type of Democracies.  There are also Parliamentary Democracies (and Westminster Democracy unique to the UK and different from other Parliamentary), Monitory Democracies, Jacksonian Democracy (I'm concerned we are slipping into this. A Republic Democracy that centralizes most of its power into the Executive instead of Representatives), Demarchy, Populist Democracy (similar to 'mob rule' but bottom up with some representation) and so on...

No need to get fussy when one uses 'Democracy', it doesn't solely refer to 'mob rule'.

I somewhat agree with that; our representatives are democratically elected republic, but we are not a democracy.  The fact that we use one aspect of a system, does not make the whole thing that system (that we are using the aspect of).

And, the Constitution is a higher power than is the democrat election aspect.  The Constitution trumps democracy, except in a few, clearly defined instances within the Constitution, primarily the process of amendment.  Once the amendment is ratified by a super majority, the power then goes right back to the Constitution as the legal agreement whereby we agree to be a nation.

[johnwk]

This has always bugged me when some get in a huff over the word Democracy. Democracy doesn't just mean mob rule, that's just how some describe one form. We are a Representative Constitutional Democracy- a Republic but still a type of Democracy in the truest and original definition of the word. What the OP implies Tucker states is a Direct Democracy (sometimes called 'mob rule' in the extreme sense). These aren't the only type of Democracies.  There are also Parliamentary Democracies (and Westminster Democracy unique to the UK and different from other Parliamentary), Monitory Democracies, Jacksonian Democracy (I'm concerned we are slipping into this. A Republic Democracy that centralizes most of its power into the Executive instead of Representatives), Demarchy, Populist Democracy (similar to 'mob rule' but bottom up with some representation) and so on...

No need to get fussy when one uses 'Democracy', it doesn't solely refer to 'mob rule'.

No need to get fussy when one agrees with what our Constitution guarantees . . . a "Republican Form of Government".

“Our democracy” as stated by Tucker, is not as descriptive as, our “constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government”, or, “constitutional republic” as Sean Hannity refers to our system.


If one wants to refer to an apple, using the word “fruit” is not very descriptive. The same applies to “our democracy”, which is likewise not very descriptive.

I know our Fifth Column Socialist Democrats recoil from identifying our system as a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, even though it is so stated in our Constitution.  Why?


JWK


John Adams was absolutely correct when he pointed out that “democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel…”.

[Absalom]

My last comment on this.
Decades ago a family member and colleague who was Chair of the
Classics Dept. at Trinity College, Dublin asserted (paraphrased):
" As we both know, History is man's greatest teacher, which is
honored by the truth. Yet when we distort and embellish it to fit our
prejudices, we dishonor it. Nothing good ever comes of such behavior."

[Emjay]

This is a great example of what is a big problem here.  Instead of commenting on the issue(s), you cross the line and go personal.  And, I'm not picking on you solely - there's a lot of "blah, blah, blah and you're stupid too".  It just hit me when I ready your reply.

And, I'm going to make an exception to a personal rule of mine: "never say never".  I don't think anyone here should ever cross that line to the personal here.  Even on the off chance that some of our members actually know each other at a personal level, they shouldn't bring their personal arguments here on a public forum.  Never go personal.  Most of the members here don't, but it only takes a few to create a bad atmosphere.

OK, off my soapbox.

It would be a kinder, gentler and more productive forum if everyone would follow that advice.

I've actually be trying lately.

[Sanguine]

It would be a kinder, gentler and more productive forum if everyone would follow that advice.

I've actually be trying lately.