| |
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
bump
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
Thanks
Neither of these terms is
Neither of these terms is defined well enough to be all things at all times. My belief, after listening to democrats and republicans (or neocons) for years, is neither has the idea of what our government is meant to be.
A republic can be aristocrats ruling the people in their interest under a constitution, people who know better ruling the rest. Plato meant it this way, as did others. The word just means in the "public interest". Prefacing the word Republic with constitutional is no better, as the example above consideres it. Rule by an aristocracy in the public interest with a constitution is still considered a republic by definition.
The unique idea of our country at it's founding is not a limited constitutional democracy or a limited constitutional republic, but individual sovereignty and it is based on the bible.
Both the democrats and republicans (or neocons) support government at all times, and as the democracts and republicans have been using the terms democracy and republican (like a false dichotomy actually) at the expense of the individual. Individual sovereignty recognizes that all men are created with unalienable rights, and that God made them to be his sons, and kings. Kings create governments. The people can withdraw the power they gave government at any time to act as their servants, as our founders said so many times.
Individual sovereignty then is the excluded middle to the big government democrats (the mob takes away your rights) vs big government republicans (the aristocrats take away your rights).
God made people to be priests and kings (Rev 1). Let no man take away your crown (Rev 3 - letter to the church in Philadelphia). If some are prodigal sons, let him return to the Father that will welcome him with open arms :)
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
You can't take away rights
You can't take away rights from a sovereign. A sovereign has all rights by definition.
The democracy vs republic is a phony debate, because it is a republic that is taking away our rights right now. So republics are automatically good? What the founders saw that was unique, and what is in the bible, is it is not democracy vs republic, but individual sovereingty. It is what neither party sees, and neither a democracy or republic recognizes individual sovereignty automatically. Instead both sides will add words to their term to try to get the ideas to come out right, never recognizing the fundamental principle missing.
The principle is individual sovereignty.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Just a quick
Just a quick point of disagreement here.
I've noticed that the term "sovereign" is getting the panacea treatment, and it's just unfortunately a complete misuse of the term.
Sovereignty requires the ability to defend territory, and individual sovereignty is a complete fallacy in this case, unless the individual has some way to keep everyone who wants to beat the crap out of him off his territory.
The founders didn't actually idealize what you term "individual sovereignty," otherwise they wouldn't have drawn up the constitution. They understood that they would have to provide for common cause, especially for war against foreign entities who wanted to take our land away from us. I don't think it right to attribute the ideas behind individual sovereignty to the founders or to the bible, neither of which were really the first to discover or propose this idea.
Eric Hoffer
http://gplus.to/jamesrmoore
You can read the below
If you read the below message and understand it, answer one question:
Do all rights belong to the individual (so long as they don't wrong someone else) - YES or NO.
That is individual sovereignty. If you believe that government can pass any law apart from merely recognizing what is right or wrong, you do not believe in individual sovereignty, or God who is the only law maker.
Do all rights belong to the individual? If you say no, we have nothing else to discuss in the long term. You plan to wrong me and others at some point, God is not Lord of your life, and our final destination is not the same place.
It is never right to wrong someone against their will that has done no wrong, not individually or by government. Not by mass vote or republics. To initiate force against someone is to violate their individual sovereignty, and goes against the bible.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
What is difference between Liberty and "individual sovereignty?"
Beside the fact it takes longer to type.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
A couple of things.
A couple of things. Individual sovereignty is better defined, and links into the history of the debate better. Here are some examples:
It links better into common law. Where the king once appointed officials, the sovereigns now elect them. A jury trial of peers - the word peer applies to nobility. We use the word as meaning equal today, but that isn't what it means. Individual sovereignty is a way that the common law was taken and applied over here - where the best of common law, was applied using the concept of everyone being a sovereign and a peer.
It links better into the bible. God has made us priests and kings. Where people want to take away rights, they have to argue against the bible, and that never ends up working.
It links better into the heart of the matter. Government folks will always say you have to have government to protect your rights, and call that liberty even if you don't want it. That everyone has to give up something and compromise, etc. It also clearly shows why a democracy is wrong. What does it matter how much people vote on something if every man is a sovereign. They have unalienable rights because they are sovereigns.
There is no compromise in Individual Sovereignty. It tells it exactly like it is. That is why those wanting big and bigger government hate the term. It says who has the power, who has all rights, and who God actually made his sons and saved. Amen. If people aren't individually sovereign, maybe the government or people (mob) are. The debate is exactly over this whether it is acknowledged or not. Our government only has limited power given to them, so they obviously aren't sovereign in the full meaning of the word. When you say "individual sovereignty", you are saying at the same time that government doesn't have the right to do anything it wants, and that it isn't really sovereign, but A SERVANT.
God has made us priests and kings, king of kings and lord of lords. There is coming a time when government will always be that way, and in Philadelphia, "city of brotherly love", that was recognized. Everyone is his own man, and no one tries to lord it over another. They all have rights as kings, and when one loves, one treats others as kings.
Let's not compromise, but want the best for each other.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Nope
Nope, you are entirely wrong.
First, the bible says that God *has* made us kings. That is a plural for all individuals, not a singular collective.
In a state of nature, everyone does defend himself. It has been this way forever. People who are sovereigns form treaties or compacts with themselves to protect each other - BUT YOU CAN'T FORM A TREATY OR COMPACT UNLESS YOU ARE SOVEREIGN.
This is the error of democracy, or what the majority of the people want is what counts, that "sovereignty of the people" means some type of unorganized collective. This is not how the founders used it.
To point out exactly how you think you are reasoning is wrong - using the same type of reasoning - the only thing that is sovereign is that which has the power to act. Individuals are sovereign, shires and counties are sovereign, states are sovereign, and the usa is sovereign, but "people" aren't sovereign in the abstract, because they have no ability to act. They are only sovereign individually. They are sovereign in the same sense as they are the Children of God, and Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, loved us so much that he died on the cross crucified for us. Amen.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Democracy and Republic are forms of government, not parties.
As Ron Paul stated, democracy is rule by man, republic is rule by law.
Whether a republic is good or not depends upon the foudning law or constitution, and whether or not the people enforce it.
In our case, our founding law does protect "individual sovereignty" or liberty. The problem is that we are ignoring our law and have essentially become a corrupt democracy.
Did you watch the speech?
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Individual sovereignty
Individual sovereignty doesn't need to be protected, it exists pre-government and in a state of nature. Government can't give it.
The parties are mentioned because the democrats usually talk about democracy, and the republicans usually talk about republics. Neither form of government implies freedom, and some of the original thoughts on republics were aristocrats ruling over others, which is also a republic. Both parties then try to get their word to explain our current system of government by adding qualifiers.
What they don't get is the sovereignty of the people. And that is not people as in a mob, that is a collection of people, each of who is sovereign. And they have the right OR NOT to compact with each other to protect each other. Even republicans get "rule by democracy"ish, when insisting that the people, meaning mob, are sovereign. Individual sovereignty does not mean the sovereignty of the mob.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Check out
Leviticus 18:13-26.
Moses chose judges for thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens.
Repent, for the reign of YaHUaH is near!
Oddly enough, it was his
Oddly enough, it was his father-in-law, not God, that told him to do that.
The New Testament is more clear, such as when Jesus talks about then the sons are free, Matthew 17:24-27, or Revelation 1:6. God made us to be sovereigns, and the United States was the first Christian nation that recognized it, and said so in its founding document. That not everyone is saved does not mean they aren't prodigal sons, as in the story of the prodigal son. There is great joy in heaven when one returns.
The sovereignty of the believer, like in Revelation 1:6, contrasts with the priesthood of the believer. It's why Samual Adams said what he said in his speech when the Declaration was signed, linked below. That their forefathers had got rid of the popery of religion, and today you will get rid of the popery of politics. That popery was the divine rights of kings, and what America got was the sovereignty of the people, per the bible.
http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/american-indepen...
Revelation 3 says to the church of Philadelphia let no man steal your crown. That is the decision we all have to make - to let anyone steal any part of our crown, politically, prayerfully, or otherwise, or to let no one do it.
FYI - voting is biblical. You will see voting in many churches by the congregation. In the bible, be careful how the word "lot" is used. Lot can mean "bal lot", or an election, or something like a straw lot, which is random. We still use both in government, so land or bidding is sometimes by random lot when it doesn't matter what the choice is, and decisions by bal lot. FYI - ballots are cast too, so also watch for that word.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Gonna watch
then I'm sure I'll be reposting to facebook. RP 2012!
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
Updated link.
You have to wonder why CSPAN shuffled all their videos around without forwarding or redirecting video links. I would bet that Ron Paul supporters use C-SPAN more than any other people.
For the record, 4,906 Views.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
for the record
you can add one more view to that list...
I had to rewatch this amazingly in depth speech as it's one of my faves
=]
bump
"The difference between a democracy and a republic was simple. Would we live under the age old concept of the rule of man or the enlightened rule of law?"
Repent, for the reign of YaHUaH is near!
Just fantastic! Shows the
Just fantastic! Shows the genius of this man.
Debbie
My favorite quote from this speech...
"The Constitution no longer restrains the government. The government restrains the people in all they do."
While that may be true, I don't think it's my favorite.
:P
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Inspiring
Republic to Democracy = We the People Without Freedom
http://www.doctorsparkles.com/audio/DOCTOR_SPARKLES-Without_...
Slavery
Great perspective on slavery and the dangers of democracy in an unenlightened society:
"Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it, too, was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority's demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a civil war that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic."
That one stood out for me too.
They compromised the principles, and look what happened.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
one of his best
This is one of the best speeches I've heard from Ron Paul. He absolutely nails it.
America's Youth vs. Big Government. The Book!
Yep, Kind of a Summary of Everything That's Going On.
Really good.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
loved it
this was sooooo great to listen to. many things to quote from here.
I pledge, do you?
It's an outstanding summary.
He explains exactly why America is failing and exactly what needs to be done.
Mostly, we just need to follow the law! And ensure that our government does too. As incredible as that sounds.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech
Article IV - Section 4 - Republican government
"Article IV - The States
Section 4 - Republican government
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."
I refuse to even recognize a "democratic" party...teeheee:D
This concept needs expanded upon. Every Liberty type answer to a question in an interview needs mention of this concept. The TEA party turds were falling on themselves with half baked answers. Explain the fundamentals, inspire debate, tell those who are wrong to go away;)
Liberty in a Democracy ...
The problem is, that e.g. the US tries to shape other democracies after its own mold. But the main thing is the respect for individual and minority rights. In fact, if that were a given, you'd not even need a democracy as he majority could never infringe anyhow. Thus countries which have ethnic diversity such as Iraq, Lebanon and the former Yugoslavia never were compatible with American policies and it ended in bloodshed.
Liberty and Democracy are Incompatible. They are opposites.
You either have a republic of laws which protect individual liberty and freedom, or you have any of the other collectivist governments, such as Democracy, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, etc.
The only thing you do democratically in a republic, is elect representatives. And even then, those representatives are restrained within the laws of the republic. They may not vote democratically on anything they want, they must follow the law.
Ron Paul's Convention Speech