Those are authentic quotes, but Madison and Adams were historically wrong on the points. E.g., the Athenian democracy founded by Cleisthenes in 511 B.C. lasted continuously, with one or two historically brief interruptions. well into the Roman Empire (at least for internal-government purposes).
This is something like the “Tytler Cycle”. Some republics/democracies in human history have self-destructed, but never by the path the misattributed quote describes, not once.
And, N.B., the wolves are the ones you’ll find on Wall Street, not in the 'hood.
Well so, give a reason to think they were wrong about this.
In states with Direct Democracy, the only thing that has protected the rights of minorities and the poor is the judicial system (PDF) - which is the least democratic of all government branches.
You can bluster all day long that the people should be given the reigns to everything, but should isn’t an argument.
The simple truth is that you care more about the quality of life of the people, and are more capable of protecting them, than they are. If you were a politician, elected to a seat in government, you might actually be able to accomplish all the radical things that you think the people would vote for if only they had the power. But if you instituted a system whereby the people could vote directly and change everything without the effects of lobbyists, campaign funding, etc., none of those things that you think the people would vote for would even be suggested, let alone pass into law.
Excluding a desire for direct democracy, if you took a survey of what the people want, you’ll just get a bunch of stuff that screws us all over. For example:
What would the results of this be?
- No GMOs. Woohoo! Starving the world to death!
- Screw our international relationship with Israel, India, Brazil, and Turkey.
- Save the dog Beau, in Dyersville, from euthenasia. (Dammit Obama! Get on that already!)
- Increased spending on very specific diseases, without regard to where that money would come from, how prevalent the disease is, nor whether there is any promising avenues of research.
Particularly with that last one. How do you get all the people in the country to sit down, review the budget, talk with scientists to triage the cost-benefit analysis of different avenues of research, and then split spending accordingly? It’s almost like you need to hire some people, that you trust, to go in and meet with each other and do this in your stead… :rolleyes: What method do you propose, other than this?
And, of course, I find it amusing that all of the same objections that go against GMOs are the same objections that would carry against most of the promising avenues of medical research, so obviously the people have no idea what they’re asking for here.
It’s completely reasonable to farm the nation for ideas on things to do, but at the end of the day, running a government means spending a full workday reading reports, issuing requests for studies, trying to show people where they’re being intellectually dishonest or morally non-rigorous, willing to have others convince you of the same, and trading horses. Get rid of all of that, and you’ve just got a government like George W Bush’s: well-intentioned, but hasty, uninformed, wasteful, divisive, and shortsighted. Don’t try and tell me that the above list doesn’t look exactly like his idea of perfection.