Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

[CDNBear]

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I have to say I actually believe the US has reached the point, where this again, has become applicable.

This is one of those things that makes me jealous of the US.

 

[El Barto]

That quote inspired me to start the thread "What makes law legal?'
not many got where i was going with that.

 

[Cliffy]

Pretty words, but do you think their present form of government would allow insurrection of that type. Every country has the right to revolt against its government, to replace it. But it cannot and will not happen without a massive uprising and history has shown that armed uprising produce even more despotic governments in the long run. Most people caught in a country are subject to the brainwashing of their government through their public school system. Thus, in the US, children are indoctrinated into "The US is the greatest country on Earth" propaganda from birth and will fight to the death to protect their repressive government to enslave them.

 

[El Barto]

Pretty words, but do you think their present form of government would allow insurrection of that type. Every country has the right to revolt against its government, to replace it. But it cannot and will not happen without a massive uprising and history has shown that armed uprising produce even more despotic governments in the long run. Most people caught in a country are subject to the brainwashing of their government through their public school system. Thus, in the US, children are indoctrinated into "The US is the greatest country on Earth" propaganda from birth and will fight to the death to protect their repressive government to enslave them.

When Government refuses to follow the will of it's people then it becomes the enemy.
If the population stood together and didn't vote , then wouldn't that remove all legitamcy ofthe government it's self?
Not all changes need to be violent.

 

[Tonington]

Whose will though, by that I mean which people? In Canada, you don't need support of 51% support, you don't even need support of the 51% who voted.

 

[taxslave]

When Government refuses to follow the will of it's people then it becomes the enemy.

Not necessarily. It is the duty of the government to provide good management,which is not the same as giving the electorate whatever they want.

 

[El Barto]

Whose will though, by that I mean which people? In Canada, you don't need support of 51% support, you don't even need support of the 51% who voted.

No IMO that is not democracy. A change would have to be overwhelming as to not have any doubt that is what the people want.

The American Declaration of Independance was a unanimous one with one sustained vote (New York).
Love historical mini series like John Adams

When Government refuses to follow the will of it's people then it becomes the enemy.

Not necessarily. It is the duty of the government to provide good management,which is not the same as giving the electorate whatever they want.

True but when government goes as far as to lose total support of it's population , then you would have a problem.

 

[petros]

The only thing people need on this planet to be successful is security and fair trade laws that are overseen by the people.

All ideals of government structure are oppressive and severely suppress technological advancement.

 

[Cliffy]

When Government refuses to follow the will of it's people then it becomes the enemy.
If the population stood together and didn't vote , then wouldn't that remove all legitamcy ofthe government it's self?
Not all changes need to be violent.

Here is the problem I see. Since the sixties I have heard about a tax revolt. Have you ever seen one. Not one that was ever started even got off the ground. I suspect that the media propaganda machine is to blame as they are very proficient at divide and conquer. Why do you think the whole right/left fiasco is so polarized? There is no difference between the two but the "sides" are split down the middle and the battle lines are drawn, even though it is just a myth perpetrated to keep people from mounting any sort of effective resistance to the ruling elite.

 

[El Barto]

Here is the problem I see. Since the sixties I have heard about a tax revolt. Have you ever seen one. Not one that was ever started even got off the ground. I suspect that the media propaganda machine is to blame as they are very proficient at divide and conquer. Why do you think the whole right/left fiasco is so polarized? There is no difference between the two but the "sides" are split down the middle and the battle lines are drawn, even though it is just a myth perpetrated to keep people from mounting any sort of effective resistance to the ruling elite.

I don't know but it also seems to me that we seem to accept the first thing we hear and run with it. Yet as you say we can't even hold together as one. We've let ourselves to fall asleep.

 

[petros]

Why do you think the whole right/left fiasco is so polarized? There is no difference between the two but the "sides" are split down the middle and the battle lines are drawn, even though it is just a myth perpetrated to keep people from mounting any sort of effective resistance to the ruling elite.

The reason is this Cliffy. Nobody knows where or how to start a legitimate legally justified rebellion.

 

[Tonington]

No IMO that is not democracy. A change would have to be overwhelming as to not have any doubt that is what the people want.

So, are you saying in order to have a democracy, we must have 50% +1 or more to support the government in power?

If you'll follow me for a second, "the will of the people" is highly subjective, which is why I asked, whose will? In Germany, Hitler used such nationalist ideas in his propaganda repeatedly, until eventually he had enough power to take the reins of government completely. Few dared to oppose, because the propaganda was so powerful, and the rhetoric so nationalist, that it was to willingly shoot yourself to oppose the rise of the Nazy Party and the Third Reich.

 

[El Barto]

So, are you saying in order to have a democracy, we must have 50% +1 or more to support the government in power?

If you'll follow me for a second, "the will of the people" is highly subjective, which is why I asked, whose will? In Germany, Hitler used such nationalist ideas in his propaganda repeatedly, until eventually he had enough power to take the reins of government completely. Few dared to oppose, because the propaganda was so powerful, and the rhetoric so nationalist, that it was to willingly shoot yourself to oppose the rise of the Nazy Party and the Third Reich.

No , we are talking of changing the government, to do so would be like i suggest , a very clear majority. (not changing the government as in an election but as maybe a different style or form)

 

[Kreskin]

Right to abolish it? Who's right? Who says it's "destructive of these ends"?

The constitution says a lot of nothing.

 

[YukonJack]

Nothing would please the puppet master Gyorgy Soros and his puppet-in-chief more than the abolition of one of the most revered document in American history.

And once that is done, kill the other. And once that is done, declare the inevitable results of the 2010 and 2012 elections invalid.

Then get some clown put a crown on His head.

 

[El Barto]

CITIZENSHIP Democracy:
Is defined as government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy or a government where the lower classes of a nation control public affairs without respect to law, precedents, or vested rights. Attitude toward property is communistic, meaning property rights are negated and ownership is by the people or state. In a true democracy the lower classes of a nation control public affairs without respect to law, precedents or vested rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate based upon deliberation, passion, prejudice or impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences of the action. A true democracy has been shown to results in demogogism, (a country run by the passions and prejudices of the majority) license, agitation, discontent and anarchy.

Democracy is about the people and their power. The power or authority exercised in a democracy is derived directly or indirectly from the represented people in one of two forms: TOP

• 
  [*]Direct Democracy:
  This is where everyone is given the opportunity to participate in making all policy decisions. In countries and large organizations, direct democracy is rarely utilized because it would be cumbersome and efficient. No decisions would ever be reached.
  
  [*]Representative Democracy:
  This approach entails people voting to elect representatives in a free and fair electoral system to make policy for them under a wide range of checks and balances to help ensure leadership accountability. The United States is a Republic which follows the ideals of a Representative Democracy. Our Electoral College is an example of voting via a Representative Democracy. TOP
  

Definition of Democracy

 

[CDNBear]

The constitution says a lot of nothing.

Good thing we're talking about the Declaration of Independence then eh? :roll:

 

[El Barto]

Adding to the democracy theme.

Quote from Bernard Shaw

Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.


Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few

 

[CDNBear]

The fact that it's there, gives the people something to use in defence, if they are so inclined to rise up. The Founding Fathers understood the temptation and corruption that came with power and I fully believe that they included this in the Declaration of Independence, because of that.

Furthermore, I'm of the opinion, that despite the clamouring of some, it is US foreign policy (that is in the best interest of the US, as it should be), is a direct threat to the safety and happiness of the American populace. Hence I believe that the American people have the right, if they are so inclined to interpret this section of the DoI the way I have, to rise up and abolish a form of Gov't that I feel has forgotten its place.

 

[ironsides]

No goverment would allow a insurrection of any kind, no matter who they are Cliffy. Brainwashing/teaching not much difference in your eyes, all children are taught just what their countries education system allows. We are the to quote what you said "the greatest country on Earth" and this is so is because we believe it. Yes, they are pretty words, and until the day comes we don't think they are, they will continue to guide us.


Here is a little two part question: How many times in the United States has there been a revolution so to speak that changed the goverment, and what happened?