Posted Nov 24, 2007 by 
mlh in Politics | 8 comments | 390 views
What is democracy? What is Liberty? We hear all kinds of references to both these days, don't we? The terms get thrown away and I fear that the majority of Americans haven't a clue, really, what either term means. We won't even get into the terms Federal Republic or Democratic Republic and related terminology, at this point. According to the Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, democracy has been given the definition as "government by the people; especially: rule of the majority", among a few others. What does majority rule mean and why is that an important aspect of democracy? Is majority rule relevant? If so, then, why? According to the same dictionary previously mentioned, majority rule has been given the definition as, "a political principle providing that a majority usually constituted by 50% plus one of an organized group will have the power to make decisions binding upon the whole." Wow; such a gaggle of words. We can gather from the definitions of Democracy and Majority Rule that the principles derived from them pertain to a tool whereby decisions can be made and applied or enforced.
With that in mind, is Democracy a good thing or a bad thing? Consider this; you like strawberry milkshakes but the majority has voted and taken the decision as to whether you should like strawberry milkshakes under consideration. The majority votes that it will be vanilla milkshakes and the strawberry milkshakes will no longer be available. The same process can be applied to every aspect of your life. Is this good or is it bad? For you, the strawberry milkshake drinker, it is bad. You are in the minority so you lose that particular choice. The decision process has been removed from you. For the majority, there is no more issue. Vanilla milkshakes it is. That "sounds" a little like tyranny, doesn't it? Does this mean that Democracy is a form of tyranny?
Yes, it is. However, this form of tyranny is an elected type of tyranny. What then, is tyranny? It is back to the dictionary for a definition, "oppressive power exerted by government". Really? We just had an election and the majority voted for vanilla milkshakes. The majority rules in a Democratic society so why is this considered to be tyrannical? This issue isn't as simple as some would lead us to believe.
The Father of our Constitution, James Madison had this to say about a pure Democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." Truer words have rarely been spoken. So, then, we may gather that a Democracy, in its purest form can lead to tyranny. So, is Democracy good then? Ask John Adams. He had this gem to express, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Other wise men have made observations about democracy and several have compared democracy to a republic and have determined that the differences between the two are similar to the differences between chaos and order...Anarchy to be more precise. Isn't that a wondrous commentary to ponder? People of the world and world leaders prattle on about Democracy and all they want is tyranny, chaos and order? This can sound rather contradictory can it not? Why would other peoples want this?
You see, our Founding Fathers were really smart men. They had lived through various forms of government and watched many come and go. They knew the pitfalls and the snares and the traps. Unfortunately, our modern leaders have lost their way.
Our Founding Fathers had every intention on protecting the people of the new Nation of America. They did not want a tyrannical form of government. They did not want a king. They did not want a dictator. They intended to create a republican form of government, not to be confused with a republican political party. We will need to define this form of government so, it is back to the dictionary: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." This is a far cry from Democracy is it not?
Personally, I don't know why our politicians in this country as well as others make a big deal over Democracy. It is certainly superior to Socialism or Communism but we will discuss those issues another day. Would it not be better to spread our Founding Fathers' dream and experiment? Yes it would. However, we would have to return to it in order to proclaim it and spread the good news around.
That brings us to Liberty. What is Liberty? It is the "freedom to do as one pleases (anarchy) and quality or state of being free and free from arbitrary or despotic control." Our form of government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers was a Federal Republic, ruling over the "various states" and ensuring continuity and protection from foreign and domestic enemies.
It was a combination of Democracy, Tyranny, Republican, Anarchy and Liberty. Combine them all into one form and you achieve a Federal Republic where the PEOPLE govern and the politicians carry out the demands of the PEOPLE, not the other way around. The people are free to CHANGE the government at will (remember that). Combining these five elements and deriving law and order, a healthy society will emerge.
Today, in America, the politicians have become the governing body and "We The People" are their serfs. We have become a form of government our Founding Fathers feared the most. The people are no longer the ruling body.
It is time to Take Our Country Back.
I have read on the blogs at Townhall and elsewhere, where several terminologies are either being exaggerated, abused and/or misrepresented.
I have been hearing we are a "Democratic Republic". I have been hearing that we are a "Democracy". I have been hearing that we are a "Republic". It all started when an author posted the "Atheist Democracy" article. That was a good article, by the way.
With that being said, I will post here a bit of data that will explain in not so much boring detail, the gist of what a Federal Republic is, in laymens' terms.
The United States was founded as a Federal Republic. This means that is was to be a representative form of government. Many people do not know what this entails.
There are three forms of "representation".
First, there is the Trustee form. This is where the elected official, theoretically, listens to the constituents and is trusted to use their best judgments to make decisions for or, in the stead of. (not a good plan)
Second, there is the Delegate representative who votes the way their constituents would want them to vote, whether or not the representative agrees with the majority of the constituents. (majority rule)
Third, there is the Politico representative which, flip-flops between the Delegate and Trustee forms of representation, depending on the issue(s). (not a good plan)
It is the Delegate form the Framers had intended and it worked that way up until FDR. From FDR and on, our representation went to hell in a hand basket and hasn't recovered yet. This form is what creates accountability in politics and we have not had much of that in decades, have we? Are we currently being represented by Delegates? In my estimation, most certainly not.
The Trustee form is what lazy and uninterested sheeple choose to live under and their "rights" can be stripped away because the Elected One "hears" them but tends to "ignore" them, thereby deciding as the Trustee so deems what is in the best interest of his constituents regardless of how the majority may or may not feel. Tyranny is the result. Trustee representation invites a degree of indecision on the part of the people and are seemingly incapable of correcting any wrongs the trustee may have accomplished. The Trustee form of representation has a tendency to become untrustworthy.
The Politico form is a mish-mash form of socialized "keep-them-in-the-dark and feed them fish eyes" representation. There is ZERO accountability. The Politico does as he or she pleases with no threats of retaliation for not representing his or her people.
The Federal Republic was making a come back during the Reagan and Bush years but was reverted back to the socialistic ways of FDR when Clinton gained control of the American Helm.
This MUST be reversed before it is too late. Should a Leftinistra (a member of the socialist liberal) gain the Throne of American politics, we will be very close to another American Civil War. I make this statement because our country has not been this split since 1861. And, look what that bred.
Vote it up at Digital Journal
With that in mind, is Democracy a good thing or a bad thing? Consider this; you like strawberry milkshakes but the majority has voted and taken the decision as to whether you should like strawberry milkshakes under consideration. The majority votes that it will be vanilla milkshakes and the strawberry milkshakes will no longer be available. The same process can be applied to every aspect of your life. Is this good or is it bad? For you, the strawberry milkshake drinker, it is bad. You are in the minority so you lose that particular choice. The decision process has been removed from you. For the majority, there is no more issue. Vanilla milkshakes it is. That "sounds" a little like tyranny, doesn't it? Does this mean that Democracy is a form of tyranny?
Yes, it is. However, this form of tyranny is an elected type of tyranny. What then, is tyranny? It is back to the dictionary for a definition, "oppressive power exerted by government". Really? We just had an election and the majority voted for vanilla milkshakes. The majority rules in a Democratic society so why is this considered to be tyrannical? This issue isn't as simple as some would lead us to believe.
The Father of our Constitution, James Madison had this to say about a pure Democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." Truer words have rarely been spoken. So, then, we may gather that a Democracy, in its purest form can lead to tyranny. So, is Democracy good then? Ask John Adams. He had this gem to express, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
Other wise men have made observations about democracy and several have compared democracy to a republic and have determined that the differences between the two are similar to the differences between chaos and order...Anarchy to be more precise. Isn't that a wondrous commentary to ponder? People of the world and world leaders prattle on about Democracy and all they want is tyranny, chaos and order? This can sound rather contradictory can it not? Why would other peoples want this?
You see, our Founding Fathers were really smart men. They had lived through various forms of government and watched many come and go. They knew the pitfalls and the snares and the traps. Unfortunately, our modern leaders have lost their way.
Our Founding Fathers had every intention on protecting the people of the new Nation of America. They did not want a tyrannical form of government. They did not want a king. They did not want a dictator. They intended to create a republican form of government, not to be confused with a republican political party. We will need to define this form of government so, it is back to the dictionary: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." This is a far cry from Democracy is it not?
Personally, I don't know why our politicians in this country as well as others make a big deal over Democracy. It is certainly superior to Socialism or Communism but we will discuss those issues another day. Would it not be better to spread our Founding Fathers' dream and experiment? Yes it would. However, we would have to return to it in order to proclaim it and spread the good news around.
That brings us to Liberty. What is Liberty? It is the "freedom to do as one pleases (anarchy) and quality or state of being free and free from arbitrary or despotic control." Our form of government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers was a Federal Republic, ruling over the "various states" and ensuring continuity and protection from foreign and domestic enemies.
It was a combination of Democracy, Tyranny, Republican, Anarchy and Liberty. Combine them all into one form and you achieve a Federal Republic where the PEOPLE govern and the politicians carry out the demands of the PEOPLE, not the other way around. The people are free to CHANGE the government at will (remember that). Combining these five elements and deriving law and order, a healthy society will emerge.
Today, in America, the politicians have become the governing body and "We The People" are their serfs. We have become a form of government our Founding Fathers feared the most. The people are no longer the ruling body.
It is time to Take Our Country Back.
I have read on the blogs at Townhall and elsewhere, where several terminologies are either being exaggerated, abused and/or misrepresented.
I have been hearing we are a "Democratic Republic". I have been hearing that we are a "Democracy". I have been hearing that we are a "Republic". It all started when an author posted the "Atheist Democracy" article. That was a good article, by the way.
With that being said, I will post here a bit of data that will explain in not so much boring detail, the gist of what a Federal Republic is, in laymens' terms.
The United States was founded as a Federal Republic. This means that is was to be a representative form of government. Many people do not know what this entails.
There are three forms of "representation".
First, there is the Trustee form. This is where the elected official, theoretically, listens to the constituents and is trusted to use their best judgments to make decisions for or, in the stead of. (not a good plan)
Second, there is the Delegate representative who votes the way their constituents would want them to vote, whether or not the representative agrees with the majority of the constituents. (majority rule)
Third, there is the Politico representative which, flip-flops between the Delegate and Trustee forms of representation, depending on the issue(s). (not a good plan)
It is the Delegate form the Framers had intended and it worked that way up until FDR. From FDR and on, our representation went to hell in a hand basket and hasn't recovered yet. This form is what creates accountability in politics and we have not had much of that in decades, have we? Are we currently being represented by Delegates? In my estimation, most certainly not.
The Trustee form is what lazy and uninterested sheeple choose to live under and their "rights" can be stripped away because the Elected One "hears" them but tends to "ignore" them, thereby deciding as the Trustee so deems what is in the best interest of his constituents regardless of how the majority may or may not feel. Tyranny is the result. Trustee representation invites a degree of indecision on the part of the people and are seemingly incapable of correcting any wrongs the trustee may have accomplished. The Trustee form of representation has a tendency to become untrustworthy.
The Politico form is a mish-mash form of socialized "keep-them-in-the-dark and feed them fish eyes" representation. There is ZERO accountability. The Politico does as he or she pleases with no threats of retaliation for not representing his or her people.
The Federal Republic was making a come back during the Reagan and Bush years but was reverted back to the socialistic ways of FDR when Clinton gained control of the American Helm.
This MUST be reversed before it is too late. Should a Leftinistra (a member of the socialist liberal) gain the Throne of American politics, we will be very close to another American Civil War. I make this statement because our country has not been this split since 1861. And, look what that bred.
Vote it up at Digital Journal
|