25 votes

Republic Versus Democracy - Ron Paul Speech in U.S. Congress

A very important basic concept which is not correctly taught in government controlled schools.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

US Army Training Manual (1928-1932)

I came across this definition a couple of years ago from the US Army’s own training manual published from 1928 to 1932, when it was removed. I am sure there are some veterans around who could validate the authenticity:

“Democracy, n.:- A government of the masses. - Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. - Results in mobocracy. - Attitude toward property is communistic... negating property rights. - Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. - Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, [chaos].”

A constitutional republic has checks and balances that are not evident in a simple democracy. Note the references to "communistic" and "negating property rights".

The secret is out. What Dr Paul will be doing in 2021 after his second term as president:

Our country has been progressively taken over

Bit by bit, over time.

It makes me wonder if it really is a conspiracy, as surely there are some that are conspiring to make us into a democracy or socialist government, or if mob mentality is just the natural inclination of most humans.

Excellent speech

This was an excellent speech by Ron Paul for his target audience.
It was thoroughly prepared beforehand and obviously much effort had gone into it - Ron Paul reading off prompt cards.

The contrast with his stump speeches at rallies is very noticeable.
Is Ron Paul's target audience at rallies existing supporters, or new voters?

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

I think rallies are just less formal

Than the Chamber of Congress.

The Republic is under the Articles of Confederation 15 November

1777 and the Democracy in under the Constitution of the United States two separate and distinct unions, one perpetual union and one more and perfect union.


Indivisible and if you try to runaway you will be hunted down and returned to abject slavery?

And if you band together to rebel all the money we steal from you will be used to crush your little rebellions and then you will be forced to work to pay us back for all the expenses required to defeat you?

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

And no talking back, don't even think about it.


He makes so much sense

I regret years of dismissing politic and missed this man.

Ron Paul 2012!

"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed."~Mahatma Gandhi
Quick Humorous Satire course on Ron Paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_65316&...

Thanks for the link. That was

Thanks for the link. That was awesome!! Ron Paul is true American hero!!


is really good.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com


I am so glad that I stopped and read this forum topic.

Before addressing any of the responses concerning this topic I am going to offer my angle of view on Ron Paul's words.

Benjamin Franklin

His comment, offered as a very old man, was sarcastic in reference to the "Republic".

If anyone has a copy of the Constitution written by Benjamin Franklin please consider publishing it before you respond to my comment concerning Franklin's sarcasm.

There was once a legal maneuver by Settlers living in the area of what is now Tennessee to become the State of Franklin. I have a copy of an old book reporting on that history titled: The Lost State of Franklin.

If you need more evidence concerning the sarcasm directed at The Constitution being a recipe for Republican Governance, and to be more precise: A Democratic Federated Republic form of government then read what the opponents of that fraudulent usurpation had to say about it, and in no uncertain terms, without any sarcasm whatsoever.

Read, for example, the speeches by Patrick Henry in opposition to ratification, and read the viewpoints of those who attended the Secret Proceedings in Philadelphia, those people who published their viewpoints after the gag order was lifted.

The Constitution was the end of a working Republic as proven by the events that document how a Republic did work during the regime under the voluntary contract called The Articles of Confederation (voluntary by relative measure to The Constitution, not absolutely voluntary for everyone within the boarders of that Legal Jurisdiction).

In no way, do not be mistaken, am I intending to detract from the messages offered by Ron Paul, in these times.

I am going to listen further as Ron Paul's speech was spoken into the Official National Record.

As to James Madison:

Please learn from history, please, or if you have a higher quality, more competitive understanding of history, then please correct any errors concerning what I am going to report to anyone reading this reply.

James Madison was a dupe who was taken in by Alexander Hamilton's lies, and all those other liars, frauds, and Monarchists, who had to have their legal money monopoly at all cost to their targeted victims.

James Madison, a dupe at the start, however duped he was during his part in constructing the all powerful Nation State, tried retracting his errors as he and Thomas Jefferson teamed up to try, in a vain effort, to put the tooth paste back in the tube, or put the cat back in the bag, with their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

James Madison found out too late, that the "Federalists" were anything but, they were Monarchists hiding behind a veil of lies so thick as to become The Federalist Papers: a large volume of lies.

If they did what they said they were going to do, there would be a Democratic Federated Republic, to defend, but that is not what they did, they made a Constructively Interpretable, or, in modern terminology: a plausibly deniable, ambiguous, and often contradictory Color of Law document, that Constitution.

Please read Patrick Henry if nothing else is gained from this reply. Look up:

Day to Day Ratification Virginia 1788 

or read this:

Gag order lifted - finally 

or this:

Madison the flip flop flipper

If Democracy means dictatorship of anyone over anyone else then Democracy does not mean equal political power to all, where all laws apply to all equally.

A Democratic Federated Republic is three parts:

A. Democracy Part
The People are the democratic part, embodied with the power to vote with their feet, vote with their selection of representatives, vote as members of a Trial by Jury, and rebel against a criminal government if needed.

B. Federated Part
The Federal Government is the One Legal Entity or Legal Fiction that operates the voluntary Union of Federated States, as a keeper of the VOLUNTARY Union of Separate Sovereign States.

C. Republic Part
The whole, combined People, combined Federal Government, and combined Separate and Sovereign States are one thing, called a Republic, a voluntary agreement, or contract, to abide by a set of rules, and as soon as there is no more agreement, there is no more voluntary Union.

Democracy can be used as an accurate word intending to convey accurate meaning, if democracy means: dictatorship by anyone, or any group, then democracy is a synonym for crime.

If Democracy means equal power commanded by everyone, with no one above the law, then that is what democracy means, if we are all criminals, then law means the enforcement of crime. If we are all non-criminals, then democracy means no enforcement whatsoever.

If a speaker depends upon ambiguity of words, the speaker is a liar.


Quantitative Easing

Example 2:

Austerity Measures

Example 3:

"It depends upon what is is." Mr. President Clinton

This is already way too long. I'm going to publish it, and reply to other forum responders before listening to the rest of Ron Paul's speech with one final word on Ron Paul.

No matter from what angle Ron Paul approaches the problem of Legal Crime, call it whatever you want, his solution goes for the throat of it.

End Income Tax (stop enforcing legal theft)

End Legal Money Monopoly (repeal legal tender laws, or, stop destroying competition in money markets)

That fixes almost everything that can be fixed by "government".


Benjamin Franklin:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

- Benjamin Franklin

You're confusing democracy and liberty. The founders promoted liberty, not democracy. And liberty is only protected by the law of the republic, or the Constitution. Without a Constitution or republic, as can be seen now, only men rule.

And, the Confederation suffered the same fate as we are now, destruction of the money. The Constitution was a step towards preventing this, but it obviously needs to be even stronger or well protected.

Sound money is the answer, which has also been our failure.

Please retract the false accusation

If you We the People, a member of this forum, have accused me,Josf (Joe Kelley), of the error of confusing democracy with liberty, then please retract that false accusation.

You can define the word democracy as the quote Benjamin Franklin offered defines democracy.

I define democracy as a political power shared by everyone equally; whereby the idea is to limit political power to the same level for each person and where no person is legally more powerful than any other person.

Those are defensible words, defendable in a state of Liberty: whereby the people involved do not resort to willful deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence as their forms of "defense".

I borrow that version of a definition of democracy from those who admit to being on a left side of a political scale that they construct into being voluntarily, or as a matter of habit.

Benjamin Franklin's quote, serving as a competitive definition, is illustrative of some hidden meaning yet to be uncovered accurately.

If it is crime that is to be plopped on the table for competitive review, then why not just call it crime?

As the "suffering" done by "the Confederation", again, there appears to be a hidden secret in that report whereby some actual people actually committed a crime upon a targeted victim or two.

Why mince words?

What is the point of covering up the facts with words that hide the facts?

I can guess.

As to the "answer" being "Sound money": by that you mean what exactly?

The answer provided by a government modeled as a Democratic Federated Republic, such as the example provided by the government under The Articles of Confederation, is legal competition in money markets, and the soundness or unsoundness of the money made legal in one State, may attract producers of valuable things to that State, proving the point of The Answer; which is competition.

Who gets to dictate what is or is not Sound Money?

Please retract the false accusation.

If anyone is confused, let them stand up and be counted.

If you claim that I am confused, then consider the real possibility that you are mistaken, since you have assumed the existence of something that only exists in your imagination.

If you have a working definition of the word democracy, from a right perspective, in that spectrum or scale of left versus right, or socialism versus capitalism, then try hammering one out yourself, instead of borrowing from someone else, especially when the definition is anything but a working one, as the two wolves have no power to vote, not in a legal sense, and if the subject isn't law, then that piece of paper, that Constitution, is worth less than toilet paper.


Have you watched the Ron Paul speech yet?

You have posted 10 comments here, but from your comments I get the feeling you did not even watch the video this post is about.

Rather than relying upon feeling

how about reading instead?

If you have read my first reply I mention specific words spoken by Ron Paul, so how is it that you get a "feeling" that I have not watched the video? How can I not watch the video and refer to the words spoken in the video?


I read your reply, and it sounds like you didn't listen.

You say yourself: "I am going to listen further as Ron Paul's speech was spoken into the Official National Record." - Josf

In order to listen further, you must have stopped?

So, did you listen further than only the first few minutes, or not? Because your replies seem as if you did not.

Quite simply, democracy is majority rule. What you actually attempt to wrongly explain as 'democracy' is liberty - the right of the people to do as they please, as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.

And as Dr. Paul explains in his speech, only a republic protects liberty.

Discuss or attack?

"So, did you listen further than only the first few minutes, or not? Because your replies seem as if you did not."

I did not listen further than the first few minutes but for you to guess so due to my responses to a discussion I am having concerning what someone other than Ron Paul has said is unfounded.

I am capable of understanding the meaning of a word when a word is used in context.

Quite simply, democracy is only majority rule if the majority dictate that meaning of that word, and if you do not have an accurate head count then your version of the meaning of that word is far from a majority ruling that meaning, even if Ron Paul, or several other people define the word exactly in that same way.

Quite simply the word democracy is not under your exclusive control as to its meaning.

What you actually are claiming is false concerning what I am doing, since I make no "attempt" to do anything. I state a word and then I state the meaning that I intend to be the meaning of the word I use, so as to leave as little room for mal-interpretation as possible.

If you do the same thing, then we do the same thing, but if you say that you are right for doing the same thing, and I am wrong for doing the same thing, and you back up your rightness because more people use the word your way compared the number of people who use the word my way, then what form of dictatorship are you now constructing concerning whose version of which words are more powerful than any others?

If you want to use any word that means majority rule, then you do that, and if your choice is to use the word democracy to mean majority rule than that is what you do.

If I want to use the word crime to mean majority rule, then I do that, and if you prefer to claim that my use of language is wrong, then go right ahead and do so, and go right ahead and argue with yourself as to how right you are for doing so, while I understand your self imposed argument is a confession of your own confusion concerning your power to force your definitions upon me.

Democracy does not have one official meaning shared by all, all the time, or else.

Democracy is clearly not meant to mean majority rule when democracy is used in contexts where such a meaning does not work, does not fit, and does not mean majority rule.

The speaker who uses democracy as a word to convey meaning other than majority rule may run into trouble when speaking with someone who assumes that the speaker means majority rule when the speaker does not mean majority rule.

Quite simply you are off base, off on some wild personal attack, targeting me out for daring to employ words precisely, and liberally, rather than abide by your dictatorial enforcements of the meanings of words as you see fit.

Even if my version of the definition of democracy was the only one ever used by anyone, it would still work for anyone wanting to use that definition in the context of a message having greater meaning than merely the one meaning of that one word so defined in advance.

Here is ONE example of ONE dictionary as ONE dictionary defines the meaning of the word democracy:

"the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges"

If you want to use any word to mean majority rule, then that is your power to do so as you see fit, to the extent that your word, so defined, works for you.

You claiming that your definition somehow refutes my definition, where you get to be the authority over words, and where I can only "attempt to wrongly explain" the meaning of words is what, what is that that you are doing now, in your world?

How many times have I run into people attacking me personally, shooting the messenger, and how many times have those same people confessed their true colors all within one very contradictory sentence that they author on their own authority?


"Quite simply, democracy is majority rule. What you actually attempt to wrongly explain as 'democracy' is liberty - the right of the people to do as they please, as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others."

Who died and made you dictator of the meaning of the word democracy, as you find me guilty, without so much as a trial, concerning my failed attempt to employ one of the many diverse meanings of one word in the English language?

According to your own words, as far as the meaning appears to me, I don't have the liberty to employ the meaning of one word, according to your dictate on that matter.

"Quite simply, democracy is majority rule."

You are the dictator of the meaning of words. I am guilty of attempting, and failing, to use a meaning that does not abide by your dictate?

See how you are?

"And as Dr. Paul explains in his speech, only a republic protects liberty."

I have paid my own earnings, twice now, to hear, in person, what Ron Paul has to say, and it was well worth the expense.

If Ron Paul thinks that a republic can do anything at all, as your words suggest, then he is as wrong as you are, with that misuse of language, as I see it.

A Republic is a legal fiction, a tool, a methodology, it has no power to act, no power to think, it cannot be responsible for doing anything, it cannot be held to any account for thinking, or doing, it cannot protect, it cannot liberate, it cannot secure, it cannot be anything other than what it is, and no more.

People, my dear friend of liberty, if that it what you are, by what you say, and by what you do, protects other people, from evil dictators who do what they do best, which is CRIME.

Majority rule where the rule is exactly the same thing as any other crime is crime, no matter how many people, actual people, are involved in supporting, aiding, and abetting those crimes.

The word didn't commit the crime, isn't planning on committing another crime, and the word isn't perpetrating crimes right now. Democracy isn't responsible. Republics are responsible. People are responsible.

People are dictators when people dictate.

People are criminals when people target innocent people and then those people who are criminals define exactly what crime is when they injure those innocent people on purpose for whatever reasons they alone invent.

"Quite simply, democracy is majority rule."

You are not my authority over words, please consider knowing that fact better.


If democracy is not majority rule what is it?

In your definition.

Democracy and liberty are not compatible. Democracy is a collective deciding what is right for everyone, liberty is individuals deciding what is right for themselves.

In CONTEXT of Rebulicanism

Please consider stepping back a moment and if possible see from my perspective for a brief moment.

There is a slim chance that this election cycle could be revolutionary as the old criminal regime is rendered powerless by a new age of true liberation for all.

How can that happen?

Enough people from all walks of life, including the many people who are now described as the left, including those people who are described as OWS or Occupy Wall Street, and including the many people who are now described as the right, including those people who are described as The Tea Party, anyone, anywhere, who merely share a desire to leave the dictatorial methodologies behind and set about on a path that liberates each of us from all those crimes that are injuring all those people right now.

It seems to me that it won't help to resort to dictatorial methods if this path toward liberty is going to be followed by the required number of people.

If half the people on the fence, at the tipping point, are almost ready to set about on the road to liberty use a sign in the distance toward liberty and on that sign the word democracy is written, and they truly mean liberty, even though the sign says democracy, then is it OK for them to start marching toward liberty, even if the sign says democracy?

In whose best interest is it to confuse language? In whose interest does it work to have half the people seeking liberty while they use the word democracy and meanwhile the other half of the people marching the same direction use the word free market?

What is the problem?

If you are still using my perspective then you may now see the problem as I describe it with words:

The problem arises when some of the people think they are marching toward liberty but they have been had, they are fooled, they are marching toward abject obedience to criminals with badges, and the sign they may be carrying may say one thing but it means exactly the opposite thing, and some of them, on that path, are unaware, and some of them on that path know exactly what they are doing, and where they are going, because they are criminals, they are willful criminals, and they know that the sign is false on purpose.

Ron Paul uses the word democracy to mean majority rule, and those on the right, as many as that number may be, share that meaning of that word.

In whose best interest is it to confuse that word, democracy, to have two opposite meanings?

Many people who define the word democracy as a rejection of despotism, or legalized crime, desire, and work at, greater liberty, and they seek to get as far away from legal crime as possible, and what happens when those people, as many as they may be, holding that definition of that word dear, are attacked by people using an opposite meaning of the word?

In whose best interest is it to have such confusion, by so many people, over the meaning of one word?

Your words:

"Democracy and liberty are not compatible."

Only when you dictate the meaning of the word democracy to mean exactly what you say democracy means to everyone and anyone without exception.

As soon as I, or anyone, uses the word democracy to mean something that is compatible with liberty, what happens?


Who is confused?

Your words:

"Democracy is a collective deciding what is right for everyone, liberty is individuals deciding what is right for themselves."

What is a collective? How about an example?

Voluntary Insurance is a process by which many people produce more than they consume and they send their surplus to one central collective or fund.

Is that a collective?

Voluntary Insurance can be a competitive process by which one insurance provider, which can be one person, or several persons employed in that productive work to provide that one Insurance Policy, and it is a higher quality and a lower cost Insurance Policy compared to a lower quality and higher cost Insurance Policy in a free market.

Is that still a collective?

Many people collect their surplus wealth into one fund, an Insurance Policy, in a free competitive market, and the method by which benefits are taken out of the fund and transferred back to some of the people volunteering to purchase that Insurance Policy, is dictated on paper, written on paper, or any form of record or contract.

If A happens to you, and you purchased that Insurance Policy according to those set of rules, competitively, in a free market, you get benefits according to those sets of those rules - unless there is confusion, or unless there is hidden costs, or unless there is a resort to fraud, or unless there is World War III.

Your words:

"Democracy is a collective deciding what is right for everyone,"

Since when did you become the sole power capable of defining and using the meaning of words?

OK, supposing that you are that sole power, in this endeavor to communicate, to communicate with someone as confused and as thick headed, even stupid, as me.

Suppose you have absolute control over the meaning of the words that you use for your own special interests.


I hereby grant you that power, over me, to make me agree to your exclusive meaning of that one word democracy.

Now, please, tell me what you mean by the word collective.

A Democratic Federated Republic is ONE thing having ONE job only, as far as I understand the principle, and if you borrow my viewpoint on this, which agrees with Ron Paul's viewpoint on this, as far as I know so far, then that ONE job can be explained as an Insurance Policy against loss of Liberty by any power that is a greater power than the Democratic Federated Republic.

The People volunteer to live in one of the Legal Fictions within the Democratic Federated Republic like buying into this ONE insurance policy. Pick any State, move there, and you are now holding one of those Insurance Policies.

You don't want to buy in, move to some other area on the planet, or you may find that you are not covered in this area.

What does this Insurance Policy cover?

It covers against the loss of liberty for those holding the policy.

Pay in, voluntarily, and you are covered.

Don't pay in, voluntarily, and you may still be covered by charitable means, but if there happens to be a great threat to liberty, currently, there might not be enough to go around, as the policy is stretched to the limits.

What about the fine print?

Ideally, as the thinking goes, a Democratic Federated Republic, is run at the level of each individual and that is enough, so what, ideally, are the expenses?

Who, or what, threatens liberty?

How about crunching some numbers, doing the job of an actuary?

The greatest threat to liberty, historically, if the actuary is going to do a good job, is despotic (or criminal) governments. Involuntary associations, dictatorial regimes, organized crime with badges, etc.

Which ones are most threatening at the moment?

How much will it cost per person, as a premium, to ensure that there is enough power in the fund so as to pay out to all those who are in imminent danger, or have suffered injuries at the hands of criminal legal regimes, here and there?

Money, or surplus wealth, or earnings exceeding costs, or saved production above consumption, is transferred from individuals, honest productive people in command of the power to produce surplus production (above consumption) send their earnings to a central collection point?

A Democratic Federated Republic, according to the design that I am aware of, does not directly connect the Federal Government to the individual wealth producers.

An Income Tax, at a Federal Level, is by that definition, of that wording, not possible.

An Income Tax would stop a Democratic Federated Republic and begin a Dictatorial Nation State.

An Income Tax, directly connecting wealth producers to the Insurance Providers as designed in a Democratic Federated Republic ends that design, makes that design null and void, and creates, instead, in my own words: Legal Organized Crime or Extortion.

The concept of a Democratic Federated Republic, such as the working example known as The Articles of Confederation disconnected the ONE legal fiction, the one Insurance Policy Provider, providing the insurance policy against the loss of liberty by criminal governments, to The People directly.

On the other hand, competitive State Governments were less constrained in their methodologies of collecting collections into the collective, and some of those State Governments dabbled with, or can experiment with, Income Tax, or taxes on whiskey, payable in gold, enforced at the barrel of a gun, or a pointed stick.

People within a Democratic Federated Government, thus constructed, could vote with their feet, going from one State, within the voluntary union, into another, less despotic state, and still have their Federated Insurance Policy Benefits, enforced, even if that enforcement means that the Federal Governors do nothing. Even if the Federal Governors don't enforce a "runaway slave" law.

Demonizing democracy, it seems to me, misses the point. Why not demonize the demons, who earn such accurate appraisals?

If a person claims that might makes right, then they are demonstrably defining, in their own words, crime. Why not call them criminals?


Have you watched Ron Paul's whole speech yet?

Until then, why don't we stick with Benjamin Franklin's definition of democracy, since you seemed to favor him.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

- Benjamin Franklin

Dictatorial communication

If I am not mistaken, a discussion involves a number of viewpoints connected in the effort to compare those viewpoints for quality, seeking to find the higher quality viewpoint, since lower quality viewpoints cost too much.

If, on the other hand, the connection is not as described above then what is the connection?

If the connection is one viewpoint dictating the meanings of words, against any objection, where the one viewpoint refuses to ever consider the possibility that there can be a more accurate, and therefore higher quality definition, then what is that connection?

Democracy is a word that is defined in many ways from many sources and if the dictators here want to dictate one meaning then that is fine, that will allow the discussion to move on.

If democracy is two wolves and a lamb, then is this discussion about the animal kingdom?

I have not lot my way, I'm here to discuss Liberty which is a condition of human life, not animal life. Let me know, please, which topic is up for discussion.

If the word democracy means the same thing as human crime, then why not call crime with the accurate word for crime; which is crime. Why do people willfully destroy the accuracy of language if not to willfully cause injury to the innocent people who are being targeted with such willful deceit?


How does democracy function?

Describe something democratic.

Trial by Jury

Source material:

Trial by Jury  

Political Power divided so as to level all political power to an equal amount commanded by almost everyone with fewer exceptions compared to absolute despotism whereby political power is concentrated into one monopoly power.



"Besides, if his laws were to be authoritative with the jury, why should John indignantly refuse, as at first he did, to grant the charter, (and finally grant it only when brought to the last extremity,) on the ground that it deprived him of all power, and left him only the name of a king? He evidently understood that the juries were to veto his laws, and paralyze his power, at discretion, by forming their own opinions as to the true character of the offences they were to try, and the laws they were to be called on to enforce; and that "the king wills and commands" was to have no weight with them contrary to their own judgments of what was intrinsically right."

Definition of democracy source:


"b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"

When the focus of attention bears down on Trial by Jury as Trial by Jury is described by Lysander Spooner (or Patrick Henry for another example) the word means that and not anything else, as would be the case if someone confused Trial by Jury with what operates today in this former Republic.

Trial by Jury explained by Lysander Spooner is an example of democracy as explained by the Web based dictionary.

Trial by Jury as the examples that work today are examples of crime made legal since the Trial by Jury of today is nearly the opposite of what it once was when it once was an example of democracy: depending upon which version of definition is used for democracy.


If it is crime, why not call it crime?


Trial by Jury is not democratic

The jury does not democratically decide if someone is guilty of something, they must unanimously agree that a crime was committed without a reasonable doubt. In fact, quite the opposite of democracy, a single jurist can disagree and change the outcome.

And even if a jury does find a person guilty, that person still has a right to appeal.

Trials are actually good examples of what democracy is not. Trials are lawful, rather than collective. Trials are designed to protect the rights of the individual against the democratic will of the majority.

Dictatorial definitions

If it is decreed by fiat that there is only one monopoly definition of democracy and that one single, and only, definition is only: majority rule (whatever that means), then the following statement could be true:

"Trial by Jury is not democratic"

Because I say so?

You and what army?

The point of Trial by Jury, and understood by King John, is that every potential juror in The Country (boundaries of the legal jurisdiction or "legal fiction") has as much power as the King, and he knew it, and in that sense Trial by Jury is democratic, so long as there is no King who has the absolute power to dictate the definition of the word democracy to mean only what that despotic King says it means.

Democracy can mean something other than majority rule, in fact it does mean that, according to a number of people who may not be a majority.

Which definition rules?

And: if it is majority rule, then why not call it crime, if it is no different than crime? Why mince words? If you are describing a criminal act, then why not call it crime?

What is the purpose of hiding crime behind less evil sounding terminology?


What is your point?

It appears you're rambling on about the definition of words, when it's the concept that matters.

Did you agree with Dr. Paul's speech, as he described democracy?


A discussion is to me a competitive process of refining perception.

To you, according to your own words, a discussion is your viewpoint overpowering my viewpoint because you say so.

You say that my viewpoint "appears you're rambling".

My viewpoint is exactly what it is, and if you are confused, then you can blame your confusion on me, or, on the other hand, if you resort to deception, you can attack my character, blaming "me" for rambling, as far as the content of your words uncover.

The concept of calling a spade a spade is the concept of truth, which is based upon the clear, and accurate perception of fact, as a preference over muddled, ignorant, confused, wasteful, false, perception.

A. Accurate definitions of words

B. Ambiguous, duplicitous, confusing, and often diametrically opposite definitions of the same word.

What is exactly wrong with Democracy, according to any speaker, any person, as the person intends to convey the accurate warning to any listener?

If the exact thing that is wrong with Democracy, according to the speaker, is that Democracy is crime, crimes committed by many people, upon a few people, as a function of a head count, then why not call it crime?

Why call it Democracy?

Why call it Democracy when roughly (very roughly) half of the people who may profit from this warning are people who happen to hold an opposite meaning of the word Democracy?

A. Call crime crime, even when many people commit crimes upon a few people as a function of a head count.

B. Cover up the fact that a crime is a crime by calling a crime by the false front word Democracy, thereby confusing anyone who may have understood the warning had the warning been conveyed with accurate terminology instead of deceptive terminology.

Going by your words the above, if I have to guess, will be more rambling according to you.

To me, since your power to make me be what you claim I am is null, the above is a concept that matters.

The concept that matters is very simple.

If it is crime, then why call it Democracy; are you hiding something?

If it is crime, logically, a warning would not mince words, a warning would call a crime a crime.


An innocent person perceives a mob who are on the march to murder a innocent person targeted by the mob, a lynch mob, a mob that is one race, and the innocent victim is a different race, and by all appearances to the innocent person who perceives the mob this mob of people will commit this crime when they get to their targeted victim.

The innocent person who perceives the mob heading toward their crime of murder has time to run and warn the targeted person who is at home with his family.

Knock, knock, knock

The messenger is a the door of the potential victim.

The potential victim answers the door.

"Hi." Says the targeted victim.

"I have a message for you." Says the messenger.

"What is it?" The targeted victim is holding his baby daughter, trying to keep her quiet. She is hungry.

"Democracy is on the way. Democracy will be here any minute." The messenger reports.

"Great!" Says the intended victim.

"Great?" Says the messenger.

"Yes, of course, democracy is exactly what is needed in this world, since there are so many criminals about, targeting innocent victims, committing crimes, and hiding behind the color of law, we need democracy now." Thanks for the good news.

"Did you agree with Dr. Paul's speech, as he described democracy?"

I have to continue watching that speech in order to be in a position to comment on it further. My comments concerning the speech, so far, focus on the vital need to call a spade a spade, to avoid mincing words, and to spell out the real dangers precisely, in a language that avoids any misunderstanding.

The use of the word Democracy to mean Crime is, in my opinion, a grave error, since there are so many people who know the opposite meaning of that word, where democracy is not crime, at all, where democracy is the exact opposite of crime, so long as no one, ever, is above the law, excepting themselves, giving themselves license to commit crimes in any manner whatsoever.

If almost everyone can agree, for example, that torture is never lawful, then democracy is understood to be a situation where anyone claiming that torture is legal is a criminal, even if the criminals say otherwise.


Ok, you are in fact rambling on, about nothing.

No "appears" about it.

I'm done with giving it any attention.

The definition of rambling

To point out a grave error is rambling.

To report the error in a reasonable manner is rambling.

Is the error important enough to report?

Will those who repeat the error listen?

If they have a vested interest in repeating the error, then it is not an error, most likely.

When the shoe is on the other foot I have the same routine responses to my warnings.


On a forum populated by left leaning people I report to them that the use of the word capitalism as a word that you intend to define as crime has the opposite affect of warning the people on the right, assuming that your intent is to warn the people on the right concerning crime.

A person overhears a meeting whereby a number of people at a corporation have been dumping toxic material, which is highly poisonous, into the local water supply, to save money.

The person goes door to door warning the local population as to the crime in progress.

The local population leans to the right.

The person reaches the first house.

Knock, knock

"Hi" says the person, holding a glass of water for his thirsty daughter, as the thirsty daughter stands by the side of the parent answering the door.

"I have a message for you." Says the messenger.

"Yes, what is it?"

"Capitalism is here in your neighborhood." Warns the neighbor.

"Great!" says the Parent as the daughter drinks the poison water.

The rambling is rambling to the people on the left too, when they prefer not to hear the facts that point out how any tool, a gun, a form of democracy, a form of capitalism, is inert, lifeless, has no power of will, no capacity to respond, and cannot logically be held to account for anything.

If there is a crime to be committed, it will be a person, or a group of people acting the same way, perpetrating a crime, using a gun, or a form of democracy, or a form of capitalism, or a form of republic, or a pointed stick.

So why call a crime anything but a crime, what is the reasoning on either side of the isle for blaming things for the crimes done by people?

Both sides hear only rambling, in my experience, and that is another point worth pointing out, as it happens the criminals benefit from that willful ignorance.



for the republic

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

Good Find