Blogger of Jared

Denunciation of Democracy

Posted by Wade on February 2nd, 2006

I think pure democracy is one of the worst forms of government. However, the main problem with my opinion is that scripture seems to disagree. Or, perhaps it doesn’t?

Any thoughts?

15 Responses to “Denunciation of Democracy”

I think that what we have learned from history, is that when we have a single ruler, or ruling party with no chance of change, then we will evenually have unrighteous dominion. That is until the Lord returns to reign in the millenium.

Democracy allows us to change leadership when we feel we need a change. I think it’s that simple.

Which of the governmental systems do you think is better?

Comment # 1 left by Ian on February 3rd, 2006

you’ll have to expand your argument Wade.

Comment # 2 left by Ryan on February 3rd, 2006

…when we have a single ruler, or ruling party with no chance of change, then we will evenually have unrighteous dominion.

Maybe, but how is this different than mob rule?

DC 121 says: Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men…

Thus, it appears not to matter how many rule because the majority of people seek for the honors of men and aspire to rise above one another. Joseph said, “mankind is naturally selfish…”.

DC 121 also says, We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

The common theme I get from these verses is that there are a very select few who won’t aspire to worldy honor (i.e. riches and earthly pleasures) and won’t exercise unrighteous dominion. In other words, there are some who are virtuous seekers for truth who are very wise and who could rule in a manner that would bring harmony to societies.

Therefore, it seems to me that an aristocracy is the best form of government - in terms of an ideal society.

Comment # 3 left by Wade on February 6th, 2006

I am not going to pretend to know what the answer is here but I will tell you our current government is what I would consider an “Unrighteous Dominion”. Lets face it our government is full of greedy, self righteous, power hungry, elitists that think that we the people are third rate citizens. I am not happy with the way our government makes decisions based completely on what makes life easier on them. Example. Seatbelt laws. Do you really think that seatbelt laws were created to save lives? Well your Wrong! Seatbelt laws were created by government lackies to create revenue for the states. Think about it. One more law you can break and get ticketed for = income. Less money spent in Social Security benefits being paid out to families of those killed in Accidents, less fatalites lead to more money saved on road closures, investigations, state funded burials. I don’t honestly believe our government has it’s people in their best intrest.

Hate to admit it but maybe an aristocracy is the way to go…

Comment # 4 left by My Dominion on February 6th, 2006

One more thing. Quit saying I am unrighteous.

Comment # 5 left by My dominion on February 6th, 2006

Do you really think that seatbelt laws were created to save lives? Well your Wrong!

Do I sense a little cynicism in that comment? I think you’re at least have right: some laws do seem to be enacted as revenue makers. An even better case in point is the infamous “red light camera”. I’ve heard (no citations to back it up though) that red light cameras actually cause more accidents because people slam on their brakes to avoid the $300 ticket and end up getting rear-ended (so they’re good for the P.I. lawyers AND local government revenues).

I tend to agree that our government is pretty corrupt. However, at the same time, I think the system is one of the best ever devised. The system of checks on separated power seems to be the most effective way to prevent tyranny. Moreover, people mis-speak when they call the U.S.A a democracy, we are a Republic (representative democracy).

I see the main problem being the fact that those who are best suited to rule will never run for office. We are therefore stuck with men and women seeking office because they love the “praise of men”. An aristocracy then, is an impossible regime; but the ideal nevertheless.

Comment # 6 left by Wade on February 6th, 2006

Quit saying I am unrighteous.

I think you may just be self conscious here? Dominion as a thing is benign - it’s the master of the domain that determines the level of rightousness.

Perhaps the “shake-up” over steak and lobster is making you self-consious (ha ha)?

Comment # 7 left by Wade on February 6th, 2006

Red light citation

How about a theocracy? Like Wade’s suggestion, it’s only worth its salt when the right people are runnning it, but in a pretty pink happy world, I would think it would be ideal..

Comment # 8 left by Ryan on February 7th, 2006

Show me an aristocricy as an example to emulate? I’m not that familiar with this form.

I personally don’t see any government other than some sort of representitive government as one I want to be a part of.

Granted, the US is more of a Republic than a Democracy, but in ways I see we are moving more to a Fascist system… but enough on that.

I would put my money on a system where “we the people” have some say in the matter rather than to have a few people have the only say.

Comment # 9 left by Ian on February 7th, 2006

Show me an aristocricy as an example to emulate

Well, I think the best example of an aristocracy to emulate would be the early years of our own republic - or at least what the founders (particularly Madison) had in mind.

I would call our form of government an aristocracy because it is set up to have the “best suited” rule.

Answer this question for yourself: Should elected representatives cast their governing vote (ONLY the representatives have governing votes - we never do (in the federal regime)) in accord with what their constituents want, or in accord with what they think is best?

I defer to the “Father of the Constitution” on this one (and incidentally concur with his idea). James Madison said in Federalist #10:

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are:
first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of
citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and
greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the
public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of
citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country,
and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to
temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well
happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the
people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the
people themselves, convened for the purpose. (Bold mine)

But, the problem for me still remains: those most fit to rule don’t get into office because our system has degenerated.

Denunciation of Democracy

15 Responses to “Denunciation of Democracy”

Search BoJ

Contributors

Guest Bloggers

Poll

Recent Comments

Most Commented

Recent Posts

Notables

Church Sites

Group Blogs

Law

Solo Blogs

Archives