(05-16-2022, 09:48 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote:

(05-15-2022, 10:29 PM)mikesez Wrote: No one really believes that.  
Anyhow I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that the Supreme Court Justices are not installed by democratic vote and are not accountable to any democratic vote after being installed, and apparently that means I need another "Republic not a Democracy" lecture.  It's tiresome and presumptuous.
Yes the system is set up so officials can occasionally do things that the people don't like,  
Yes that is a good thing,
But yes that also means that whenever they do, we can expect lots of people to protest.
And we should respect the rights of people to protest.
Saying "we're going to do this thing most people don't like" then saying "also we won't let you protest it" - that's not just unAmerican.  That's the political equivalent of pissing on someone and telling them it's raining.

I wonder what friends you actually have.

To completely shrug off one of the founders of our country's views about democracy... 

The fact is that Democracy can only exist in tiny city-states.

That's why when politicians throw around the word Democracy I shudder... the masses believe in "democracy".... The United States has been and always was a Constitutional Republic. Some laws get democratic votes - but the vast majority of the day to day life laws are managed by people we vote in - therefore - it's a Republic. The only feasible government. But just like all government, easily corruptible and tainted by the powerful.

I'm not shrugging anything off.  
The bolded is the controlling fact.
That's what Federalist 10 by James Madison keeps coming back to.  
No one is actually advocating for the people to directly vote on federal issues because everyone understands that it would be beyond impractical, even with modern technology.  
Just as it was impractical then.  If you read John Adams' writings, he finds some examples of relatively direct democracy in Italy, but even there he points out that these small city states are more like representative republics than democracies.
And today all of those Italian city-states are gone, there's just Italy. Well San Marino is still a thing. But not important
To reiterate, "democracy," that the Founders argued against, that many modern sophists argue against today, did not exist anywhere then, and does not exist anywhere now.
Anyone with a modicum of education is aware that we have representatives who vote on stuff for us, so that we don't have to worry about every detail, and nearly everyone in the "masses" is fine with this aspect.
The "masses" are mostly disconnected, not informed of philosophical arguments, not informed about how their government works today, and not desiring to be informed either.  Which is fine.  But they certainly don't want to have to go vote multiple times a week on issues that they're not informed of and don't want to be informed of.  Have you even met one person who wants this?

So what do we call it when someone proposes that their opposition wants something that doesn't exist, can't exist, and that no one actually wants to exist?

In any other context we would call this a straw man argument. 

Now, the Founders were merely trying to assuage the public that they were practical men and that they weren't trying to create such a thing.  But anyone invoking these arguments today knows what we have, knows that no one actually wants the other thing, and is really doing a disservice to any kind of honest and measured discussion when they paint people they disagree with this way.

By the way, the two wolves and a lamb thing, is not actually in the letters of Ben Franklin, or any other founder.  https://checkyourfact.com/2019/05/29/fac...-hamilton/

And think about it.  Even if it was there.  These were the men who proposed that the fate of the institution of slavery would eventually be decided by votes.  If that's not wolves and lambs voting over lunch, what is?

Think!

---