I have really enjoyed writing these posts thus far and I have put a lot of energy, research, and thought into their creation. I have been thinking that for a while I wanted to write a post about the difference between a democracy and the republic form of democracy that we have. On this matter, my knowledge is very limited but I understand some of the key concepts and a bit of the history that was addressed at the Constitutional Convention on this matter. I bring this up because I really enjoyed Todd's comments and the inclusion of an article by Neil A. Maxwell on the virtues and handicaps of democracy. Neil A. Maxwell wrote a fantastic article and I agree that we as a democratic society need to be remember that this nation responds to the voices of 300 million people. It is impossible to think that all of those voices will agree or that they will always get along. We conservatives are by nature entrenched in the traditions and the institutions of our fore-fathers. We are the preservers and defenders of the successes that have combined to make this Nation the greatest in the world. It is the greatest in might, in freedom, and in economic living standards. Mr. Maxwell argued that sometimes we have to accept the fact that sometimes democracy will go counter to our beliefs, but that is the nature of democracy. I mostly agree with that statement. However, I felt that he missed one point that needs careful consideration. We must accept the voice of the people so long as that voice does not infringe upon the unalienable rights of the people. It is in this effort that I felt that we should have a discussion on the differences between a Democracy and a democratic Republic.
The fact that the United States of America is a republic is perhaps more significant than most might realize. Greek democracy was one of the first generally accepted examples of the rise of a government system controlled by the voice of its citizens. The people implemented laws and selected leaders by popular vote. As long as the voice of the people affirms good laws and good leaders, it works marvelously. However, if the people begin to implement terrible laws and elect corrupt leaders, the system decays very rapidly. When analyzing these systems, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, became very nervous about democracy because it could lead just as easily to tyranny as a monarchy or oligarchy could. This term is often referred to as a Tyranny of the Majority. Madison knew that direct democracy lead to the eventual decay of the Greek democratic state. Madison, therefore, brilliantly blended a democratic system within a republican form of government to allow for both self-rule as well as protections against a tyranny of the majority.
James Madison was the most significant voice in the creation of the U.S. Constitution and through his efforts, he helped to construct the greatest form of government that has ever existed. He was also the principle author of the 1st 10 Amendments to the Constitution, which thankfully, the other delegates had the sense to include. Madison initially opposed the idea of a Bill of Rights because he believed that the Constitution was in itself a Bill of Rights. Had they not included the 10 Amendments, we would have most likely lost all of our individual freedoms by now. James Madison knew that the greatest strength of democracy was also its greatest weakness. If the people chose corruption or aristocracy over value and moral, the system would self destruct. So he devised a way to prevent this by creating checks against democracy.
The system by which democracy is checked is called republicanism. (Not the political party) By definition, "It stresses the liberty and rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects aristocracy and inherited power, expects citizens to be independent and calls on them to perform civic duties, and is strongly opposed to corruption." (Wikipedia - Republicanism in the United States) Furthermore, "It is not the same as democracy, for republicanism asserts that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters..."(same) What this means is that in a republic, the majority vote of the people can never override the law or rights of the minority.
Let's analyze the precepts of republicanism for a bit and see how they fit into the growing dilemma that pits conservatives against liberals. First, republicanism stresses liberty and rights as central values. This infers that before laws can be formed to govern human activity, there must be an understanding and definition of human freedom. The Founders wisely placed these definitions in the Bill of Rights. They are the conceptualization of Jefferson's poignant phrase from the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truth's to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR, with certain UNALIENABLE Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." (emphasis added) This is text book republicanism. Before we form laws to govern human activity, we must first acknowledge the existence that certain fundamental rights belong to the people. The government does not grant us those rights. They exist on their own merits. They were given to us by God and Government cannot rightfully take them away.
A thorough understanding of the Bill of Rights asserts very clearly, that those tenants belong to us. Regardless of any vote of the population, the government cannot lawfully take away my right to assemble or to worship. They cannot take away my God given right to arm myself in order to defend my life and the lives of my family and community. I cannot be forced to testify against myself nor be held in prison for years on end without a trial by jury. I have the right to enter into legally binding contracts. Most importantly, I have the right to live and the right to determine my own destiny. Any law that violates these tenants even if it was enacted by the voice of the majority, should be overturned by nature of our republican form of government.
Next, republicanism requires that the citizens be sovereign individuals. In this case, it means that we are the supreme law making body. As a whole, we are not subject to the authority of another as laws can and should only be created by the populace. This is where conflict arises because it is completely impractical for laws to be enacted that are beneficial to the whole. In any government system there will always be winners and losers that arise from any political incorporation or change. However, those laws can never supersede our unalienable freedoms and rights. The courts have charge to protect us from these incursions on our freedoms by the legislatures and executive branches. But now they too are caving to tyranny.
Lastly, republicanism requires that the citizens be independent. This empowerment comes from our ability to own and use private property. We cannot be independent nor free without the ability to acquire and utilize this God given right. We must be able to own property so that we can create a means, independent of the government to provide the necessities of life. Those include the ability to buy food, clothing, housing, transportation, and non-necessity consumables. If the citizens become dependent on the government for the factors of life, republicanism is instantly destroyed. They become subject to the government. Simply put, their necessities are provided by the government and they must, therefore, do what the government wishes or they will lose their ability to survive. Dependent citizens are slaves to this system. When this occurs in large enough numbers, political corruption explodes astronomically.
This comes about because political leaders use the destruction of personal independence as a means of gathering political strength. Their dependent constituents will support them because their re-election is necessary for their survival. If their representative loses, they may lose their entitlements. We see this over and over again in political elections. Politicians use scare tactics aimed at getting re-elected. This works because their constituents are dependent on them for the necessities of life. They look to them for their jobs, housing, food, and clothing. If those things are at stake because you can't provide them for yourself, you will fight hard to preserve them. You will sacrifice all your freedom to have them. For most, remaining alive is way more important than having freedom.
The point of this discussion is to illustrate why it is so important that conservatives win the political fight that is before us. Universally, every tenant of liberalism is aimed at destroying republicanism. Their campaign to liberate the populace sexually will enable them to influence many children in the rising generation towards their beliefs. Kids born in weak family environments will be easy prey for indoctrination in the educational institutions of our country. This is obvious since many of these kids will not have been properly educated by caring parents. Since these kids will be born in weak families, there will be a greater propensity to rely on government handouts for survival. Sexual perversion and promiscuity will lead to more and more kids learning and believing in liberal ideology.
Next, the liberal campaign for the environment is aimed at one unalienable right; the right to own, control, and utilize private property. Most conservatives would agree that negligent and irresponsible destruction of our environment is a bad thing. It's a bad thing when a company dumps toxic waste into a water system to save costs on disposal. This is a good use for the EPA and criminals such as this deserve stiff penalties. However, we draw the line at preserving the environment to point of destroying normal human behavior. (e.g. we can't build houses because it's deemed anti-environment to cut down trees) More recently, it's bad for the environment to breathe. (CO2 is a pollutant ---- Extreme sarcasm intended) A free people, must always be allowed to own property and they must be allowed to utilize that property in most manners that they deem necessary for their benefit. We cannot be a free people otherwise.
Lastly, the liberal campaign for social welfare is perhaps the most devastating of all. This campaign is built on a huge lie. It is the lie that society has treated them unfairly. It is unfair that some are born into poverty and others are born into riches. Some are born into minority families and others are born into (evil, dastardly) white families (e.g., the evil majority). This is a lie because, America is foremost a meritocracy. This is the vision that James Madison had of this nation. If you weren't born into wealth, go out there and literally make it yourself. However, this message is being lost on great hosts of people these days. Therefore, they seek to right these inequalities by redistributing wealth. In a sense, they steal it with their votes. Robin Hood is the ultimate liberal in this sense. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. Isn't that the modern day phrase?
The fact that the United States of America is a republic is perhaps more significant than most might realize. Greek democracy was one of the first generally accepted examples of the rise of a government system controlled by the voice of its citizens. The people implemented laws and selected leaders by popular vote. As long as the voice of the people affirms good laws and good leaders, it works marvelously. However, if the people begin to implement terrible laws and elect corrupt leaders, the system decays very rapidly. When analyzing these systems, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, became very nervous about democracy because it could lead just as easily to tyranny as a monarchy or oligarchy could. This term is often referred to as a Tyranny of the Majority. Madison knew that direct democracy lead to the eventual decay of the Greek democratic state. Madison, therefore, brilliantly blended a democratic system within a republican form of government to allow for both self-rule as well as protections against a tyranny of the majority.
James Madison was the most significant voice in the creation of the U.S. Constitution and through his efforts, he helped to construct the greatest form of government that has ever existed. He was also the principle author of the 1st 10 Amendments to the Constitution, which thankfully, the other delegates had the sense to include. Madison initially opposed the idea of a Bill of Rights because he believed that the Constitution was in itself a Bill of Rights. Had they not included the 10 Amendments, we would have most likely lost all of our individual freedoms by now. James Madison knew that the greatest strength of democracy was also its greatest weakness. If the people chose corruption or aristocracy over value and moral, the system would self destruct. So he devised a way to prevent this by creating checks against democracy.
The system by which democracy is checked is called republicanism. (Not the political party) By definition, "It stresses the liberty and rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects aristocracy and inherited power, expects citizens to be independent and calls on them to perform civic duties, and is strongly opposed to corruption." (Wikipedia - Republicanism in the United States) Furthermore, "It is not the same as democracy, for republicanism asserts that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters..."(same) What this means is that in a republic, the majority vote of the people can never override the law or rights of the minority.
Let's analyze the precepts of republicanism for a bit and see how they fit into the growing dilemma that pits conservatives against liberals. First, republicanism stresses liberty and rights as central values. This infers that before laws can be formed to govern human activity, there must be an understanding and definition of human freedom. The Founders wisely placed these definitions in the Bill of Rights. They are the conceptualization of Jefferson's poignant phrase from the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truth's to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR, with certain UNALIENABLE Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." (emphasis added) This is text book republicanism. Before we form laws to govern human activity, we must first acknowledge the existence that certain fundamental rights belong to the people. The government does not grant us those rights. They exist on their own merits. They were given to us by God and Government cannot rightfully take them away.
A thorough understanding of the Bill of Rights asserts very clearly, that those tenants belong to us. Regardless of any vote of the population, the government cannot lawfully take away my right to assemble or to worship. They cannot take away my God given right to arm myself in order to defend my life and the lives of my family and community. I cannot be forced to testify against myself nor be held in prison for years on end without a trial by jury. I have the right to enter into legally binding contracts. Most importantly, I have the right to live and the right to determine my own destiny. Any law that violates these tenants even if it was enacted by the voice of the majority, should be overturned by nature of our republican form of government.
Next, republicanism requires that the citizens be sovereign individuals. In this case, it means that we are the supreme law making body. As a whole, we are not subject to the authority of another as laws can and should only be created by the populace. This is where conflict arises because it is completely impractical for laws to be enacted that are beneficial to the whole. In any government system there will always be winners and losers that arise from any political incorporation or change. However, those laws can never supersede our unalienable freedoms and rights. The courts have charge to protect us from these incursions on our freedoms by the legislatures and executive branches. But now they too are caving to tyranny.
Lastly, republicanism requires that the citizens be independent. This empowerment comes from our ability to own and use private property. We cannot be independent nor free without the ability to acquire and utilize this God given right. We must be able to own property so that we can create a means, independent of the government to provide the necessities of life. Those include the ability to buy food, clothing, housing, transportation, and non-necessity consumables. If the citizens become dependent on the government for the factors of life, republicanism is instantly destroyed. They become subject to the government. Simply put, their necessities are provided by the government and they must, therefore, do what the government wishes or they will lose their ability to survive. Dependent citizens are slaves to this system. When this occurs in large enough numbers, political corruption explodes astronomically.
This comes about because political leaders use the destruction of personal independence as a means of gathering political strength. Their dependent constituents will support them because their re-election is necessary for their survival. If their representative loses, they may lose their entitlements. We see this over and over again in political elections. Politicians use scare tactics aimed at getting re-elected. This works because their constituents are dependent on them for the necessities of life. They look to them for their jobs, housing, food, and clothing. If those things are at stake because you can't provide them for yourself, you will fight hard to preserve them. You will sacrifice all your freedom to have them. For most, remaining alive is way more important than having freedom.
The point of this discussion is to illustrate why it is so important that conservatives win the political fight that is before us. Universally, every tenant of liberalism is aimed at destroying republicanism. Their campaign to liberate the populace sexually will enable them to influence many children in the rising generation towards their beliefs. Kids born in weak family environments will be easy prey for indoctrination in the educational institutions of our country. This is obvious since many of these kids will not have been properly educated by caring parents. Since these kids will be born in weak families, there will be a greater propensity to rely on government handouts for survival. Sexual perversion and promiscuity will lead to more and more kids learning and believing in liberal ideology.
Next, the liberal campaign for the environment is aimed at one unalienable right; the right to own, control, and utilize private property. Most conservatives would agree that negligent and irresponsible destruction of our environment is a bad thing. It's a bad thing when a company dumps toxic waste into a water system to save costs on disposal. This is a good use for the EPA and criminals such as this deserve stiff penalties. However, we draw the line at preserving the environment to point of destroying normal human behavior. (e.g. we can't build houses because it's deemed anti-environment to cut down trees) More recently, it's bad for the environment to breathe. (CO2 is a pollutant ---- Extreme sarcasm intended) A free people, must always be allowed to own property and they must be allowed to utilize that property in most manners that they deem necessary for their benefit. We cannot be a free people otherwise.
Lastly, the liberal campaign for social welfare is perhaps the most devastating of all. This campaign is built on a huge lie. It is the lie that society has treated them unfairly. It is unfair that some are born into poverty and others are born into riches. Some are born into minority families and others are born into (evil, dastardly) white families (e.g., the evil majority). This is a lie because, America is foremost a meritocracy. This is the vision that James Madison had of this nation. If you weren't born into wealth, go out there and literally make it yourself. However, this message is being lost on great hosts of people these days. Therefore, they seek to right these inequalities by redistributing wealth. In a sense, they steal it with their votes. Robin Hood is the ultimate liberal in this sense. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. Isn't that the modern day phrase?
However, there are significant consequences that arise from this approach. First, it breeds a great deal of envy. People become unsatisfied with their own possessions and turn their hearts towards their neighbors' possessions. Next, the recipients become indebted to a system for their survival as we discussed earlier. Lastly, the victims (the haves) lose any economic incentive to produce. The fruits of their labors are forcibly taken from them and given to someone else. The natural result will be a weakening of society as a whole. The recipients become slaves and the victims will eventually sell themselves into slavery in order to stop the plunder. Eventually, socialism will always lead to the same eventuality - SLAVERY!
However, this can all be corrected if conservatives can realize the power of their message. That power lies in the heart of republicanism (not the party). If we can muster significant political pressure (i.e. the silent majority stops being silent) to legally force the government reembody the ideals of unalienable rights, limited government, and individual sovereignty, we will see a significant decline in the decay of this nation and a rebirth of morality and economic progress. These will flow as natural consequences of getting government off the backs of Americans and letting them thrive. There is so much potential for success if the sound of our good laws can stifle the sounds of some many corrupt voices. Let freedom Ring!
However, this can all be corrected if conservatives can realize the power of their message. That power lies in the heart of republicanism (not the party). If we can muster significant political pressure (i.e. the silent majority stops being silent) to legally force the government reembody the ideals of unalienable rights, limited government, and individual sovereignty, we will see a significant decline in the decay of this nation and a rebirth of morality and economic progress. These will flow as natural consequences of getting government off the backs of Americans and letting them thrive. There is so much potential for success if the sound of our good laws can stifle the sounds of some many corrupt voices. Let freedom Ring!
-Dave Smith
No comments:
Post a Comment