> I believe democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner.

What system would you support instead of democracy, and how would you convince the 2 wolves to support that system when they could just ignore it and eat what they want? At least under democracy, the lamb might get 4 years to emigrate, or persuade the wolves to become vegetarian.

Democracy may not be perfect, but the fact that human society has invented a system that is more peaceful and liberating than either civil war or dictatorship is something like a miracle, so I don't expect there to be something fundamentally different and better that humans could implement.

I do think that not all democracies are equal, though, and it's worth considering the possible options regarding voting systems, gerrymandering, mandatory voting, recall elections, the size of legislatures, campaign finance rules, and so on.

> The democratic elements in our current system have replaced this idea of Individual rights, with the idea of collective rights... Has replaced the philosophy of negative rights, with positive rights. Has replaced individualism, with collectivism

I think your disdain for current political and societal trends has been directed at the idea of democracy, but it is merely a scapegoat. If anything, democracy has made people feel more empowered and more individualistic, whereas allowing the states to elect the Senators on behalf of the people is a more "collectivist" approach. Also, I'm not sure how you can blame democracy for the philosophy of positive rights, except to say that most people in the US support the idea of schools and food being provided for poor children.

There is maybe an argument for requiring super-majorities for changing very consequential aspects of a country, such as the minimal set of powers granted to the federal government, or the minimal set of restrictions that the federal government can place on the individual states, but even that is a form of democracy, and if anything it is more collectivist to require a super-majority than a simple majority.

I don't want to put words in your mouth or misrepresent you, so forgive me if this is an unfair characterization, but if what you're actually saying is "I prefer how things were, and I wish that the system made it as hard as possible to introduce all these new changes that other people seem to want", then I would say that this is not a principled position on the system itself, it is a self-serving preference for whatever system would give you the outcome you wanted. Such a preference would fail the "original position" / "veil of ignorance" thought experiment, and therefore should be rejected.

> No to me Jefferson was better founder

Then let me also provide some other quotes, expressing his views on democracy and individualism. "It is my principle that the will of the majority should always prevail."[0] "Every man cannot have his way in all things. If his opinion prevails at some times, he should acquiesce on seeing that of others preponderate at other times. Without this mutual disposition we are disjointed individuals, but not a society."[1] I don't know how representative those quotes are of his over all philosophy, and I think the Joker may have said something similar to the second one, but hopefully it confirms the idea that the modern trends you are reacting to have very deep roots.

[0] https://www.azquotes.com/quote/569419

[1] https://www.azquotes.com/quote/822481