You appear to be defending the injustice by pointing out that he should be thankful we don't take it all. That about right?
"injustice"
I "appear to be" saying that the dastardly wolves, in fact, don't seem to have put these sheep - the people you allege are to be eaten - at any disadvantage, in any way, shape or form.
You're suggesting that folks in the 18th century never heard of democracy, and a republic was a close as they could get.
No, I'm not. I said it was designed as a 'democracy' of its time - granting control over the state to a revolutionarily large number of individuals, while still being bound in by the mores of the time. ie women as chattel, Africans as property, etc..
THAT'S nonsense. They were perfectly aware of the concept of direct democracy, and they consciously rejected it. They had plenty to say about the tyranny of the majority and other shortcomings of pure democracy.
All a non-sequitur, because I said nothing about "pure democracy" or "direct democracy." I've seen no one advocate, here, a form of "pure democracy."
What I said was that the country has been, since its inception, both a 'democracy' and a 'republic.' It is only by willfully misunderstanding those words that people can whine about the evils of 'democracy.'
"Constitutional" means that some things are off limits even if a majority want them.
Laws only offer protection insofar as enough people choose to follow them.
A bill of rights that overrides majority votes is a restraint on democracy.
And yet not incompatible with 'democracy' - as we've seen in the US for over 225 years.
A bill of rights supported by a majority, as ours is, also acts as a check on the power of those who would take and abuse their own power - the autocrats certain people think might not be so bad for liberty.
"Republic" means that the people do not create laws directly: they choose men who then create laws on their behalf.
That last clause defines a republic as a 'democracy.'
Which, again, feeds back into what I've repeatedly said: democracy, constitutional and republic are in no way contradictions.
It is only when arguing against a strawman of 'direct democracy' without any respect for rule of law that any of the anti-democratic arguments here make a lick of sense.