Honestly, I'm starting to think democracy might not be so great after all. I've seen plenty of people try to legitimately qualify it by saying 'if we only let X people vote then...". There are no identifiable groups who can be given the sole responsibility of voting. One might point out that once upon a time, only white male property owners voted, but then we still ended up here didn't we?
The founding fathers hated corruption and tyranny, and then they established a federalist government with a separation of powers that was admirably resistant to both corruption and tyranny. Not resistant enough though.
The US government was a success insofar as it was decentralized. We've come to know the potential of decentralized currency and engineering with cryptocurrency and open-source projects. Why not an even more decentralized government, such as a distributist union of city-states? Virtually all responsibilities would be confered to states or even cities, and they would succeed or fail on their own. The federal government would be a small constitutionalist monarchy with very limited jurisdiction
Our Constitution was intended for an educated moral people. Wont work lacking those qualities.
Perhaps so, but winning votes with 'gibs me dat' or gibs for short is a valid strategy. Hell, the promise of stimulus even worked in Trumps favor. Moral and educated people is necessary, that's true. I no longer believe democracy incentivizes this sufficiently. The thing about distributism is that self-reliance is paramount. The distributist must work for themselves first, and others second.
Gasp, a new heaven and earth?
Not sure what you mean by this?
Change of the way the world operates is what old testament new heaven and earth was. We're going through it whether we know it or not, or whether we like it or nor. Freedom will continue to drive and win eventually.