The Poison of Democracy

Fisher Ames quoteOver the years, especially as of late, I have heard many people from many different political sides and affiliations, argue their specific point, belief, notion, whatever, in the name of Democracy.

Republican party, Democratic party, Libertarians, Anarchists, Socialists alike, explaining that their points of view, and their ability to share them, are part of the fabric of the Democracy that makes America so great!

Just one problem…

America is NOT a Democracy. We are and always have been a Republic!

The word “democracy” isn’t even found in the US Constitution; instead, we have:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” (Article IV, Section 4)

Democracies allow majority rule to change law at will. Republics have a set of absolute legal protections (higher laws) to which their contract becomes invalidated by any large change. Under the American Republic, the highest law is that of Natural Law; the use of reason to analyze human nature individually by one’s own reason—not by collective reason. In Democracy, you find the need to act collectively for legislation or direct resistance. This creates trust in persons over yourself. Republics supersede this by teaching the individual that you are superior to government, individual sovereigns. Democracies use trustees, which is what modern politics teaches the masses that their elected representatives are, but Republic requires representatives to REPRESENT their constituents’ wills within the confines of the law. In Democracy, the society must be small and on a microlevel, otherwise large-scale implementation leads to tyranny, as proven by Greece and Rome. The Republic is an agreed upon association that is used by small regions for assurance of basic interactions. Should Democracy corrupt a small region into aggression, the Federation will confront the aggressors. In a Republic, large authority to dictate national morality and social interaction is highly discouraged.

In short, because the Constitution guarantees a Republican form of government, then all Federal central authority ideals are false because they are based on the false premise that the US is a Democracy.

So why do these aforementioned ideologies constantly focus on Democracy? Well, first and foremost it is because this misconception that we are a Democracy has been taught in the education system for over 130 years. This is partly due to the mindset that came out of the Civil War along with the infiltration of the European Socialists in to the universities at the end of the 19th and 20th centuries.

The Founders intentionally considered Democracy. Then they debated, discussed, and disregarded it because they found that a Democracy is not a viable system. It is only a tool. Nothing more. To use it as an entire system proves to be self-destructive, as described by Fisher Ames in the debates on the Constitution:

“Democracy is a volcano, which conceals the fiery material of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption, and carry desolation in their way.”

As a system, Democracy only works on a VERY small scale, but over time, as James Madison described in the Federalist Papers, it becomes easy to target individuals as scapegoats, and to violate the individual’s rights out of want for the mob rule or want of the masses over the minority.

The brilliance of the American Republic is the Republican agreement simply recognizes State’s rights to free interactions and restraints. States may not impress their laws on the citizens of other states or violate their own citizen’s Natural Rights, they may not invade for any reason, any neighboring state or foreign nation (unless under emanate danger or invasion), they may not seize the property of any citizen, they have an agreed upon currency for easy trade and they may not impede trade. Simple and easy. Democracy was used to create an ideal among the affluent by the Federalist into tribalism and seize political control of the country, and though one may say the Republicans won back the government in 1800 with Democracy, it’s important to note neither Jefferson nor Madison wanted to go that route because it allowed political parties to control the vote and not the people, as today’s two-party system does. In fact, all usage and goals of Democracy under the previously mentioned current political ideologies, including anarchy, are destroyed in one fell swoop from James Madison in Federalist X:

“A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert (theater) results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual… Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulences and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, of the rights of private property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been in their deaths.”

So is Madison wrong? Are we just going to believe the proponents of Democracy when they say that Democracy has advanced beyond this? The Middle East makes a thrashing of that concept. That’s why the Islamic Brotherhood wanted the recent explosion of “Democracy” in Libya Syria, and Egypt. So the factions wanting power would be destabilized enough that the Brotherhood could try and twist every Arab to accepting their rule, because they’re all “Muslim”. As we saw, they capitalized and seized power. Were or are they to hold power, they do intend on being the deciders of “personal security, of the rights of private property”, as does the American Socialist/Democrat—or more importantly the Globalcrats in the U.N? In a Republic, that’s not in the government’s authority. Madison continues:

“Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political right (this is different than natural rights), they would at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinion and their passions.”

This is what many political elites are pushing for, and as we see, Madison knew of these people well, because it’s always been the goal of the governments of the disenfranchised to own all in their path. In fact, I argue my description is highly accurate. The university-prescribed text book ‘The Challenge of Politics’ says Democracy is, “government by the poor, who governed in their own class interest,” which means it’s a system where the jealous have-nots take from the haves… does that sound like a safe and equal system of government to build on or use?

Where one can just take from another one who worked hard to have more than them? Not in a Republic. Best defined by ‘The Republican to the People’ published in the Connecticut Courant Jan. 7, 1788 in which the argument is being made to unite liberty and government, which is what true Republic actually is, it is wrote:

“The principle circumstances, which render liberty secure, are a spirit of liberty among the people – a general diffusion of knowledge – a militia of freemen – and a fair representation in the supreme legislature.”

Anything beyond assuring this is not a proper authority of free government, and Democracy cannot assure against that level of intrusion by a government or through protective associations. Only a militia of free men who know their power to enforce Natural Law can stop encroaching authorities.

The best way to be sure a man knows this is to insure he governs himself. Noah Webster said in response to a set of representatives in the Congressional Convention “Do you not know that in this country almost every farmer is the Lord of his own soil? That instead of suffering under the oppression of a Monarch and Nobles, a class of haughty masters, totally independent of the people, almost every man in America is a Lord himself…”

So if I’m a Lord myself, who should think so highly of themselves that they are my trustee with power over me? That they can say and make the will of every other man supersede my own? That should I succeed that, that trustee may come take what I earned?

We’ve lost what Webster defines, which all Americans knew of themselves during that time: you are no longer taught you are a Lord yourself, but servants who own nothing personally, only pushing for the betterment of the species by political masters that see themselves as kings of knowledge beyond your comprehension. They have only the spirit of liberty among their own, not for all – they hide knowledge among only themselves – they’ve specialized the militia/military under their authority – they believe they are trusted to make decisions that are best for all of us, not just their constituents, and they do so with Democracy. If those men think we should use Democracy, I’d rather have no society.

Imperium est Civis
By Ginsburg

posted by Ginsburg · tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments are closed, that's weird.