Democracy and capitalism cannot coexist. Why? Democracy is inherently socialistic

PGA Weblog ^

[ProgressingAmerica]

At the Occupy Strategy Session at New York University, all the usual suspects are once again targeting capitalism. This isn't surprising, anybody who digs into the roots of all this 'Occupy' stuff will quickly see that it's all based on progressivism and central planning - with a hint of socialism, a hint of communism, and they have even teamed up with Islamists. But this business about the incompatibility of capitalism and democracy. What makes that true?

In 1887, Woodrow Wilson wrote an essay titled "Socialism and Democracy", and in my original entry I wrote an observation about mobs.

We've all seen what 'Occupy' does. They're a mob. And what does the mob want? Other people's money. So Woodrow Wilson was right after all. Democracy is socialism. Then democracy and capitalism are indeed incompatible.

Isn't it a good thing then, that the Founding Fathers gave us a republic? If we can keep it.

[Bishop_Malachi]

You mention a lot of interesting points about how socialism and democracy can (but do not necessarily have to) be coextensive. The problem has been that a Constitutional Republic has been incompatible with purer forms of Democracy. There are a host of things today that are unconstitutional if only a slightly literal interpretation is granted. When one assumes merely that the words of the Constitution have meanings common to the understanding of the Founders, then it is clear that we no longer are ruled by the Constitution of our Founders.

I often ask my liberal friends “What limits does the Constitution places on the ability of one group to take property from another through taxes?” Or I might ask, “How are the wealthy protected constitutionally from the ability of anyone to seize and redistribute their property on a national-scale?” They honestly have never even thought of such a question. Their minds are constantly geared towards how to take more. Why would anyone want there to be a constitutional-limitation?

The Founders did have a limitation. It was the Consitution itself with the notion of delegated powers. This is where Jefferson was right and Hamilton for all his financial acumen was wrong. Implied powers allow the General Welfare clause and Interstate Commerce clause to obliterate any notion of federal restraint in realizing the will of a majority on a minority...and that most importantly involves a minority with accumulated wealth. Hamilton might be horrified to see where his philosophical tendencies have lead. I certainly do not think he was a socialist. He did err far too often on the side of statism, and that way of thinking is what allows liberals to justify their ever-expanding policies.

[tophat9000]

In a true pure democracy there is no minority right...Nazi can gas the jews at will