The question of democracy

[GMDino]

(03-13-2018, 01:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am currently reading a book which has caused me to think about something it presented. We all know that the framers of our government saw pure democracy as something that would not be advisable. For this reason we have a representative democracy. What we often think about is that the idea of our system of government is to be democratic but protect the minority from suffering injustices at the hands of the majority. A noble goal when taken at face value.

It should be noted, though that this is a bit of a perversion of how the founding was really done. Rules regarding who could vote and hold office meant that the people with power were more landed. Also, the most well off needed to be protected from the rabble and so as James Madison stated during the 1787 convention: "They [the landholders] ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." This was the basis of the creation of the Senate, or the upper chamber with considerably more power. Madison and other framers were concerned about the common rabble rising up against them, it would seem, and so they attempted to concentrate power. They reduced democracy.

Now, this isn't a new problem that had been discovered. Aristotle wrote about this same dilemma in Politics. What was fun was that in reading this book, my copy of Politics was on the shelf right in front of me, so I pulled it down to look this stuff up. Really fascinating. Aristotle, in Book VI, chapter 5, says that "poverty is the cause of the defects of democracy." He goes on to argue that the way to even out this power dynamic, to help a democratic society thrive, is to reduce the inequality among the people. That if the system is set up to reduce the differences (not eliminate them) then it will protect that opulent minority from the majority.

So here we have two competing ideas on how to protect the minority from the majority. Madison and the other framers opted for reducing democracy, and Aristotle's argument was that we should reduce inequality. My questions for discussion on here are: Which do you prefer? Is this a false dichotomy and there are other ways? If so, how? Should there be a mixture and where do you think that mixture should lie?

I know this is all getting a bit more philosophical than a lot of threads, but I'd like you to keep that in mind if you post in here. These are opinions people are expressing and opinions are subjective. There really is no right or wrong on this, only your opinions on what right and wrong are.

Reducing inequality, obviously.

Raising the lower class is the best way to help the economy, lower crime, make the country better.

Less stress and less division.