If the founding fathers knew how everything would turn out today, do you think they would reconsider democracy?

If the founding fathers knew how everything would turn out today, do you think they would reconsider democracy?

And do what instead?

They would have taken steps to prevent a "Federal Reserve" which is a hoax of a name because there's nothing federal about it

The biggest problem with democracy is the following:
1. Women voting rights
2. Non landowner voting rights.
3. Giving immigrants voting rights after a few years instead of after a few generations.

The main characteristic flaw with democracy is that overtime you start giving more and more rights to people that are incapable of being responsible (like women) or 18 year olds that never worked a day in their life.

We should have just stuck with a hereditary monarchy, only kings get to rule.

They did try to prevent the international banking cabal by establishing a sovereign bank. Basically the first thing George Washington and Hamilton did.

The rubes got duped by traitors like Jefferson and Jackson, the country was thrust into depression after each spiked the national bank. Second go round the depression lasted ~20 years and resulted in the civil war where jesuits seized control of the government.

>"I conceal what I know, on that subject, from the knowledge of the nation; for if the people knew the whole truth, this war would turn into a religious war, and it would, at once, take a tenfold more savage and bloody character, it would become merciless as all religious wars are. It would become a war of extermination on both sides. The Protestants of both the North and the South would surely unite to exterminate the priests and the Jesuits, if they could hear what Professor Morse has said to me of the plots made in the very city of Rome to destroy this Republic, and if they could learn how the priests, the nuns, and the monks, which daily land on our shores, under the pretext of preaching their religion, instructing the people in their schools, taking care of the sick in the hospitals, are nothing else but the emissaries of the Pope, of Napoleon, and the other despots of Europe, to undermine our institutions, alienate the hearts of our people from our constitution, and our laws, destroy our schools, and prepare a reign of anarchy here as they have done in Ireland, in Mexico, in Spain, and wherever there are any people who want to be free, ect."

The Founding fathers created the perfect conditions the first time, we changed the rules.

Yes

Stick with their better plan of monarchy.

They didn't like democracy in the first place.

Literally everything was fine until 1913. Literally 4 things fucked this country up. The Federal Reserve. The 16th Amendment. The 17th Amendment. The 19th Amendment.

I take that back. The fifth thing was the National Security Act of 1947.

Without those 5 things this country would be colonizing the fuckin' Andromeda galaxy right now. Fuckin' shit.

Just so you know, Harry Truman called the National Security Act of 1947 the biggest mistake of his life. Yes, the man who dropped the bombs on Japan and killed a couple hundred thousand people in the blink of an eye said that.

Think one of them wanted America to be a monarchy.

Except dropping the bombs wasn't even considered a mistake

I know. That was my point.

They certainly would consider picking their own cotton.

Unfortunately they couldn't of known that there slaves would one day be considered equals on the sole basis that they are a relation to white man. If only they guaranteed the ethno state in the bill of rights.

A Constitutional Republic mebbe?

==gas the kikes===

That's an interesting question. Maybe they would have tried to end slavery and send them back

This guy knows his history.

Wrong.

Look up the original 13th amendment.

>"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

Why do you think the war of 1812 happened?

Aaron Burr was exposed as a traitor, Jefferson the traitor was out. People were banning lawyers and British agents and such from the government, even stripping their citizenship for such activity, with the coming 13th amendment.

Then the war of 1812 happened. Virginia passed it in 1818 completing ratification and the second national bank was established in 1818 as well.

Shortly thereafter, the traitor Andrew Jackson, originally financed and promoted by the traitor Aaron Burr, started to hit the scenes. The American people detected something was amiss, Captain Morgan blew the whistle on the foreign freemasons subverting the nation, and the anti-Masonic party formed.

Unfortunately the blue bloods working for the British East India Company managed to successfully get Jackson into office, the bank was scuttled, and the nation plunged into depression until the civil war.

The USA has never been a solidly formed nation. We've been struggling to solidify the country from the beginning and mostly failing going all the way back to the early 19th century.

They didn't consider democracy. Most of them wanted a hereditary senate, an elected monarch, and property requirements for the heads of families who could vote for the lower house.

Andrew Jackson started up white male democracy in the 1820's because he knew he could import poor Irish to vote for him.

The USA are not a democracy. The USA are a REPUBLIC.
Why is it that I have to school you on this? Don't you study it or something?

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power “To coin Money,”.
Article I, Section 10 says “[No State shall] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;“

They tryied dude, they tryied.

>Clinton received gifts from Saudi prince

While I agree that Jackson was probably the worst President we ever fucking had (and I've never ever understood why this God damn board has some strange obsession with him other than "hurr durr duels!" and he admittedly hated banks. Still, he was fucking horrible and it should be no surprise that Sean Penn was sucking cock left and right to be the guy to play him in the upcoming HBO miniseries (the next John Adams type thing that Paul Giamatti did a few years ago), I wouldn't say that the country was totally fucked until 1913.

And I also would hardly call Jefferson a traitor. Like, where did that even come from? Jefferson was just an agrarian and wanted a nation of mainly farmers (and I agree with him).

Of course not.
They were freemasons, therefore jewish puppets.

The true redpill is that the US was founded to offer refugee to people following obscure cults that wouldn't be accepted in the Old World at time.

>Don't you study it or something?
It is no longer widely taught. It's all about "muh democracy" nowadays.

>The USA are not a democracy. The USA are a REPUBLIC.
Are you dumb or what? The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Actualy, liberal republics(like the US) imply in democracy

The usa was a republic until the 17th amendment. Now it's more of a direct democracy.

>They were freemasons,
Only a handful.
>therefore jewish puppets.
Lolno.

>Like, where did that even come from?
Well he aided in sedition against his rightful king just to set up his own shop.

Now I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

>rightful
>king

Like, who the fuck do you think you're talking to?

A king so rightful he didn't let his subjects have any

No mechanisms of direct democracy exists at the federal level in the US. The 17th did indeed weaken this.

Certainly there are elements of democracy in the US system. However efforts were made by the founders to mitigate a "tyranny of the majority" by limiting the directness of our democracy.

The founders did well. We averted both the tyranny of the aristocrat and the tyranny of the mob.

Unfortunately, we fell victim to the tyranny of the bourgeois

this. the would also expel the jews

>tyranny
and the tyranny of the tranny

They'd explicitly mandate that procedures for exit from the union would be according to the procedures necessary to amend the constitution and be conducted entirely by the government of that state.

>No mechanisms of direct democracy exists at the federal level in the US.
Wut? We elect the House, the Senate, and the President, all by direct vote? Or are you saying because we vote those representatives on issues, we're not true direct democracy (which then yes, I would agree with you)?

>we elect representatives
That's representative democracy, lad

No, they would probably pass a law forbidding slavery (thus stopping the south from flooding America).
Also they would make an unchangeable law that only land owners or people with a lot of money can vote.

>That's representative democracy
this

People in the US do not vote on policy initiatives directly.

its a constitutional republic you filthy nigger. democracies always vote themselves into socialism and then inevitably slide into communism.

"A Republic mam, if you can keep it."

Yes, I know and I said I agree. However, I think the argument could be fairly strongly made that there's been a definite shift toward direct democracy strictly because if the representative doesn't vote the way their constituents want them too, they're under threat of being voted out. And this is heavily on the rise year after year. Which, at that point, you may as well be direct democracy and stop the charade altogether.

But again, I agree and I misspoke.

we're a republic, and they would have started building the fucking wall right after signing the DoI, and shipped all the niggers back to africa or drowned them.

Jackson and Jefferson are probably the two presidents responsible for the most lasting victories for the interests of the common man at an institutional level than all the rest of our presidents combined.

Without them America would have been a gangbang of merchant tyranny over the masses of shabbos-goyim from start to finish.

>Like, who the fuck do you think you're talking to?
I thought people who knew what they were talking about. Guess not, eh?

>American education

yea Jefferson had some great ideas, a liberal back when liberalism wasn't a brain diseased name for commie degenerate jew puppet

>liberalism

We need to take back the language. I try to never use the term "liberal" in reference to commie leftist progressives

Probably a system similar to the Kaiserreich or an enlightened monarch. Washington was offered a crown when the revolution, he refused of course.

The Federalists knew that the general populace could not be trusted with democracy. However, Jefferson and allies were right in stating that a large federal government would endanger the rights of all.

The Founders were also among the richest men in America at that time.

This is a good thread

Liberia would have been the size of Nigeria has (they) not assassinated Lincoln.

>be australia
>be a literal prison colony
>so cucked you still want to be under a monarchy that cared for your ancestors so much they dropped them off on a continent on the other side of the world and sailed away
everything about you is embarrassing, tbqhwyfam.

I hate to be a living, breathing meme, but I am 100% convinced that if the founding fathers lived today they would nearly certainly gain most of their inspiration from Hoppe.

what's with the Hoppe obsession on this board?

>democracy
You spelled "republic" wrong. Also, they'd look at the warmongering Andrew Jackson and go "Well, I suppose it was bound to happen".

Then they'd look at Lincoln and every judge that has declared secession as unconstitutional and point out that that is how the US was formed to begin with; shutting down that argument.

Then, finally, they'd throw their hands in the air after realizing Amendments 11-27, and walk away in disgust (or just an hero on the spot); but not before reading your post, and the misuse of the word "democracy", and slit your throat.

Yep. The founding fathers would be considered "terrorists" by today's standards. I'm surprised we haven't completely vilified them in our schools yet.

>Elect the president directly

HOLY FUCK NO. THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE PICKS THE PRESIDENT.

American education is why we have a flag on the moon while you have a flag on your flag.
He denied them the rights of Englishmen, get fucked.
Hamilton's system would have been best imo
Homogeneous nation + natural rights + official christianity and strong culture

Jefferson was extremely shrewd, but he didn't foresee the illiterate immigrant rabble

obviously.

If they got a peek at todays America, they would immediately outlaw slavery and any immigration of non-Whites, including Jews.

You are based, and welcome to live here. We need more like you.

His ideology offers a balance between National Socialism and Libertarianism while utterly destroying leftism and democracy in the process.

>wanting the National bank aka a Proto-Federal Reserve

That's the one thing I disagree with Hamilton on. Only the govt. has the right to coin/print money.

The others I'm fine with

>American education is why we have a flag on the moon

American education is why we only have a flag on the moon

There, I fixed it for you. American education has fallen off of late.

And more American "education."
Fun fact, Jayquan: America was the prison colony first. Similarly, very few prisoners did settle in Aus. It was mostly willing colonists.
Also, it might surprise you to learn that white people have culture which they enjoy being part of. Perhaps one day you'll discover what that means.

Finally: Lmao@ur incapability to even discuss a superior form of government which the perfidious bastards who founded the USA stupidly eschewed.

>American education is why we have a flag on the moon
So in your mind, American education is about stealing German scientists rather than doing work yourself?
>while you have a flag on your flag.
We don't, though. Our flag is our flag.
>He denied them the rights of Englishmen
Except not. That was the problem, they didn't get special treatment.

NO but if there were smart they would have made sure any non-white wasnt allowed. They would have killed any invaders without any questions asked. They would not have given women the right to vote and they would have oriented the society so that people who worshipped success and were slaves to the society should be punished and re-educated. Non-whites do not belong in the US.. it is just as wrong to force people to co-exist as it is to destroy and kill. I mean look at this shit.. This is utter filth, tyranny. Why dont i have rights as a white person if i am non-violent and for eqaulity?

Of course you're right. I've been drinking. Leave me alone.

In my defense, only 179 electors have cast a faithless vote and it's only really affected it in the 1836 election.

But yes, you're right.

>special treatment
>can't elect representatives
Lol, no wonder your unis are trash.

lol. Let me guess, you're one of those Catholic faggots on here who unironically wishes for Monarchy?

kys

The transition of power from the state representatives to the federal rebalances the whole system in a way that concentrates power with the most remote and least directly-culpable institutions within government. Even with the senate being selected by general election the number of directly-elected representatives you get to choose for participating in the body of government with supreme legal authority over the land is proportionally diminished, because much of its power was once controlled by your local state government, made up entirely of representatives nearer to you, over whom your vote had more influence given its greater proportional weighting relative to a smaller pool of eligible voters.

You "gained" one new representative with effective power over law and governance, and lost dozens more.

>why is the president so fucking powerful
>who let all of these kikes and niggers in government

>Waaah! They wouldn't let us shoot ourselves in the foot!
Also that's quite rich coming from the place to invent corporate universities and SJWs. No wonder you have to import doctors.

Not Catholic, and we already have a monarchy. Only thing to wish for would be to get rid of the (((elected officials))).

There is more to the electoral college than simply providing a mechanism for the college to override a poor selection by the electorate. There is also the fact that it prevents only populous states from determining the outcome of elections.

> Defend British colonies during French/Indian War
> Win
> setup plan to pay off war debts through taxing the defended colonies
> Chimpout ensues

I am against the senate being selected by general election. I want the 17th repealed at both the state and the federal levels and and term limits applied to the houses.

Got it. So you're just an Aussie retard? Thanks for clearing that up.

I know, man. I'm agreeing with you.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

>Can't even discuss his government, has to sperg out at others
Sad!

Yo what did you miss about representation being a prerequisite for taxation brah.

Fucking English civil war happened according to the same basic reasoning.

They denied us rights that any true Englishmen would die for. Don't be upset that you only got the 3rd raters and therefore hadn't the capacity to produce a Jefferson or a Washington.
>defend their extortion ring
>enact taxes without representation
>durr y u mad

It sounds like you're implying it was a mistake. 2 nukes wasn't enough desu.

Huh. What do you recommend I read by him?

I didn't mean to be disagreeable lol. Just wanted to see that detail included in the thread.

They did and made a constitutional republic

>doesn't even want his own government. criticizes others for discussing theirs.
Many such cases!

>representation being a prerequisite for taxation
Where is that in the rulebook?
Even Magna Carta doesn't phrase it like that.
>Fucking English civil war happened according to the same basic reasoning.
Well no. It happened because the Parliament was shit, so Charles told them to fuck off (as was his right), and they decided not to because they were greedy Jews.

>They denied us rights that any true Englishmen would die for.
Again, they didn't. There were perceived slights "justified" after the fact.
>Don't be upset that you only got the 3rd raters and therefore hadn't the capacity to produce a Jefferson or a Washington.
Why would we need to produce traitors and oathbreakers?

But we have our own government? Are you actually this retarded? Hell, ours is utter shit, but at least it's better than the clusterfuck of the USA which has no safety net.

That's a type of democracy.

I see lots of comments about the mistake of letting women vote, etc...

Ultimately I think political franchise should only be available to those who are net contributing taxes. Freeloaders and gibbmes should be excluded.

>reconsider democracy

their shit has been bamboozled
capitism is fucked beyond belief

somebody explain how digital EULA and online terms and conditions hold any legal value
and also explain why courts are such biased shitholes who practice micky-mouse law for rich people

>somebody explain how digital EULA and online terms and conditions hold any legal value
Contract law is a pretty basic pillar of society, brah. Yea, a lot of them are shit, but they're shit you agree to.
Courts being pay2win is a separate matter.

>deny them rights
>ur only perceiving it!
This is some of the dumbest stuff I've ever read. Can see why you need a monarchy. The average aussie's intellectual capacity is as lacking as everything else down there t b h

They could disenfranchise the whole population by setting an absurd tax rate and providing that exemption to any of it is contingent losing your right to vote.

I mean really that would take less than a single senate session to accomplish.

What (((rights))) were being denied at the time, then?
>Can see why you need a monarchy.
Everyone needs monarchy. Otherwise you wind up "electing" negroes and B-list tv stars who gleefully fuck you over with no consequence.

well they intended a republic ran by educated, land owning males. and at the time it was just considered common knowledge and so deeply ingrained they thought it was idiotic to spell that out in the constitution because it was implied through being totally obvious

lol. I'm not shitposting with you anymore, Aussie. You're on your own.

To everyone saying the US is and/or was a republic, not a democracy, I'm just here to remind you that a republic is a type of democracy. There are two major types of democratic government: direct democracy and representative democracy. Athens, the first democracy, was a direct democracy, and the US, a federal, constitutional, republic, is a representative democracy.

case in point, slavery. obviously they wrote the constitution saying all men were created equal, blah blah, rights about freedom from search and seizure, freedom to bear arms, etc but none of this was ever intended to apply to the african slaves. it was considered so overtly obvious that they felt no need to write down "european white men" in the constitution.


so honestly, you can say they underestimated the liberal mental disorder and SJWism, and in fact, they were a bit too cocky and forgot to dot their i's and cross their t's

the founding fathers are actually going to be the four horsemen of the Apocalypse and wreak havoc on washington

I've already stated this. Is your tiny criminal cranium so small that you can't remember? The right of representation.

>disenfranchise the whole population
They would cut their own funding doing that.

And I seem to recall stating that those who were net contributors (as in they pay in more than they receive as handouts) would vote. Not that anyone who receives any exemption to taxes should be disenfranchised.

nothing can be proven
they cant prove any solid terms deliverd, (and not modified at any time on their servers) and they cant even prove you agreed to them

you can bypass terms and conditions without agreeing for software and websites.
its a complete load of bullshit,
its not even contract law, its just arbitrary bullshit written on a chinese pachinko machine

and courts of law actually use txt files as evidence, that literally any dumb nigger running windows 95 and upward can modify
computers dont produce any form of tangeble evidence worth of shit

WHAT THE FUCK ARE THE JUDICIARY AND LEGISLATIVE BODIES SMOKING?????

Wow. No. Republics are very anti-democratic, as they usually try to assign power based on "merit."

Republic of Venice
>Commoners unable to vote

Republic of Rome
Senate
>Only the noblest of families, or unusually talented (think US billionaire) people qualify.
"Assemblies of the people,"
>"Equites" and "Heavy Infantry" had 2/3 of the voting power, even though there were 4 or 5 classes lower than them.


Also, look at pic related. If the US described itself as, "The billionaires and people of America," would you describe such a system as democratic?

George W spent 8 years talking about how we need to "spread our democracy." Thank you for correcting my retarded countrymen.

No, dude. Just stop. No.

They were all almost unanimously against slavery, they just either a.) didn't know how to get rid of it, b.) were so reliant on them they didn't know how to get rid of it, or c.) just didn't have time for it while creating a new nation and all.

>"I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them. I will not—I cannot justify it, however culpable my conduct."
>"It is not a little surprising that Christianity ... should encourage a practice so totally repugnant to the first impressions of right and wrong."
Patrick Henry
>"I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition."
George Washington
>"I do not expect to get near the worth of him; but cannot think of punishing him by transportation merely for coveting that liberty for which we have paid the price of so much blood, and have proclaimed so often to be the right, & worthy the pursuit, of every human being."
James Madison writing about one of his slaves.
>"As much as I value an union of all the states, I would not admit the southern states into the union, unless they agreed to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness and not strength to the union."
>"The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind."
George Mason

Ben Franklin, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton were all open Abolitionists.

Most of them could hardly treated them as slaves in the traditional sense you first think when you think of slavery. They were more like servants.

National Socialism