A Great Posting on Another Site

Well, I had to have a night where I worked on schoolwork or I would put at risk that 4.0 average that I have managed to keep until age 38! As some of you may know, or maybe you don’t, a dear friend inspired me to start this blog in the first place. And I owe her for it tremendously. Recently, we decided that the Libertarian Dissection I am doing is a great topic for her readers as well, so we have been doing dual posts so that her readers get to have our discussions too! But tonight I went to her site and found this amazing post….

The United State of America… A Great Democracy!

For some the title was unsettling, for others, they see nothing wrong with it.  Don’t worry; no one knows what you are thinking.  If the title wasn’t unsettling we should probably talk about it. 

The USA is indeed a Republic.  (Go ahead, we will wait while you say the Pledge of Allegiance)  Recently, in several conversations I have had people comment on our Democratic Government or our Democracy, not that they are wrong, because if we are not careful, we may become that in name as well as deed. 

I wanted to write about this because I keep seeing the two words used in Blogs and written or spoken conversation as though they were interchangeable.  Just so you know they are not interchangeable, PLEASE GET THE WORD DEMOCRACY OUT OF YOUR VOCABULARY WHEN REFERENCING THE USA!  There are some that will read this and pay no mind because they know the difference between the two; for everyone else, let me break it down for you. 

A democracy is rule by the Majority, in an omnipotent (all powerful) sort of way.  Laws passed by the Majority (whether that majority is all of the people in the country or a majority of elected officials) are applicable to all and you have to live in the constraints of those laws even if you are the minority.  You have absolutely no rights to argue.  In many cases you may leave, but that is about your only course of action.  It is sometimes refereed to as Mob Rule. 

In a Republic, the purpose of the form of government is to control the Majority and others while chiefly to protect the citizens’ God-given unalienable rights of all people in general.   There is a Constitution that protects the unalienable rights of the minority as well as the majority, even if the governing body passes a law.  In other words, The Constitution is the Law and all other measures that are passed have to follow it’s rules.  If the measures do not follow the Constitution, they are unconstitutional and should be repealed.

Many of the laws that have been passed even as far back as the early 1800’s are unconstitutional.  All of the laws that have been passed with any kind of charity or pork barrel spending (to name a few) are unconstitutional.  All of the gun laws currently in place are unconstitutional.  The Constitution grants us the right to keep and bear Arms, which trumps any state law requesting that you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.  The Constitution is the mother trump card.  The problem is that the citizens are the only ones who can throw the trump card and demand that elected officials follow the Constitution. 

Some of you are still asking why this is unsettling.  We are slowly allowing our rights to be taken away by the majority.  The Patriot act is just one example, which takes away our rights of illegal search and seizure, rights to privacy and personal liberties (to name a few) that the Constitution guarantees us.  Laws that have set up our National Welfare system are unconstitutional.  Laws dealing with “eminent domain” (the Government telling you that they are building a highway right through your homestead, but they will pay you $.50 on the dollar for your land) are unconstitutional because the Fifth Amendment states “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”.  The only protection we have is to pay attention to the laws that are being passed that we may relieve representatives of their positions if they do not have our best interest, but rather their own agendas at heart. 

In conclusion, any laws enacted by the Congress (should they not be constitutional) will only be repealed by the power of the Voters to elect officials who will restore the Constitution and repeal laws that were made in error of the Supreme Law (The Constitution).  This is where “we the knowledgeable voter” comes in.  If we allow our rights to be chipped away, we will eventually operate under the rules of a Democracy with the pretense of a Republic.   Typically what follows a Democracy is a fall into Dictatorship.  This is a long process, which usually takes decades.  It does not happen in one Presidency or even three or four.  We cannot blame President Elect Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Regan, Jimmy Carter or any of the others who came before.  We have only ourselves to blame in allowing it to happen.  Our unalienable rights have been chipped away long enough, and now it is time to act to preserve an idea of government unprecedented in any other nation worldwide.

“The Roman Republic fell, not because of the ambition of Caesar or Augustus, but because it had already long ceased to be in any real sense a republic at all. When the sturdy Roman plebeian, who lived by his own labor, who voted without reward according to his own convictions, and who with his fellows formed in war the terrible Roman legion, had been changed into an idle creature who craved nothing in life save the gratification of a thirst for vapid excitement, who was fed by the state, and who directly or indirectly sold his vote to the highest bidder, then the end of the republic was at hand, and nothing could save it. The laws were the same as they had been, but the people behind the laws had changed, and so the laws counted for nothing.” -Theodore Roosevelt

So that is her post, copied verbatim from her site. I wanted to share this with all of my readers as well. It also gives me a chance to promote her blog to all of you. She is witty and quick and blunt. You have probably ran into her in discussions here as revolution 2010. If you enjoy what you are reading here you will enjoy her thoughts as well. So while I look forward to the comments from you here about what she wrote, I ask that you jump over to her site and comment as well. She is the Coup Detat link in my blogroll over there on the right hand side. You can also get there by clicking here:Coup d’etat by Monkey Wrench

Again please go by and give her site a read. I am sure that you will enjoy it. I would warn you to be nice the same way that I ask you to do here, but if you aren’t I assure you she can handle you in any verbal battle you choose to instigate! And thank you revolution, for this informative and interesting post. I will be correcting people from this point forward. 

Comments

  1. Actually, “republic” and “democracy” are the same word, just in different languages. Where the substantive difference comes in is the addition of the qualifier “representative”. This means that the voters vote for representatives who then vote on how to most effectively violate the rights of the people, instead of doing the voting to violate rights directly.

    Yes, I know I am being intentionally uncooperative with that statement, but it is more true than many people recognize. There is no need for any new “laws” since everything is already either forbidden or mandatory. Therefore, there should be nothing for the representatives to do. Unless they were under “the 100-year moratorium”, where “laws” could only be repealed.

  2. revolution2010 says:

    Kent,
    I gotta tell you, while you are funny, sometimes the stuff you say strikes just a tiny bit of truth in a twisted kind of way. I unlike you am OK with limited Government. I was just thinking the other day that positions in congress were meant to be part time. At least that is how I believe it to be. The Congressfolk were paid minimal salaries, and in most cases were not dependant on the people to fund their existence. I do think most of the laws that are passed are unnecessary, irresponsible and unconstitutional. It should be a part time job… the Constitution does a pretty good job of limiting rights to exist inside of a common proximity.
    The other thing that I fell I have to bring up is that the biggest difference between the 2 is that a Republic has a Constitution. That protects all of the people AS LONG AS the people take the initiative to enforce the constitution should corrupt majorities try to limit it’s meaning, whereas a Democracy is exclusively Majority rule with no recourse to retain rights. There is just no one to fight, as it is what it is.
    I hope that came accross right… I am pretty tired. Thanks for the comment, you always do show a new point of view!

  3. I always thought it would interesting to put an automatic sunset on all of our laws. This would require congress to repass laws every so often, both helping to get stupid laws off the books, and keeping them too busy to pass to crap on us.

  4. Jon Smith,

    That is an interesting thought. It would mean that at all times laws would be relevant to the times. Irrelevant ones would simply not be passed again. And lord knows that it would keep them busy. They use all their free time coming up with new ways to fleece us.

  5. Yes, exactly. It may not be an ideal thing for a perfect libertarian society, but I think it might be something the American people could get behind, and eventually it would be great for limiting the growth of our existing system. The only major issue would be that certain laws, like the consitution, would have to be exempted. This could cause some issue with gaining support for this, because many people who would support laws that only apply to the current state of the world are the ones who think that the constitution is out of date and does not apply.

  6. Laws that apply to the Rulers are permanent; laws they subject us to sunset after a year or two. I’d still ignore most of their “laws”, but maybe they wouldn’t bother passing so many.

  7. Jon,
    Funny that you mention the sunset law; I was actually thinking something similar recently when I was reading the Constitution. There is a sunset in Section 8 concerning militia and war, I believe.

    “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”

    Strange that is the only clause like it that I could find. It really makes me wonder what that conversation was like, but I often wonder what all of the Forefathers conversations were like.

    I think it would be great to have a sunset on laws. If it is something they feel should be permanent, they should amend the Constitution. Even the scallywags that are currently in congress would have a harder time actually amending the Constitution for something they sought. (Except Pelosi) Not to mention that 3/4 of the states would have to ratify it… now that is some checks and balances!

  8. BlackFlag says:

    Sunset laws only delay, not deter, tyranny.

    Hitler’s Supreme Authority had a clause that every 4 years he was required to renew his authority by vote in the German Parliament.

    He never missed his date, and they voted him in unanimously.

%d bloggers like this: