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.

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.

Please consider reading the historical record further

There were at least 3 major groups fighting to gain power during the years between American colonization and the enforcement of the Nation State that is U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) by any name you wish to call that thing that is a legal fiction.

Federalists (They were Monarchists, Nationalists, War Profiteers, and Central Bankers, working to create a Legal Money Monopoly in America, and they used the word "Federalist" as a false front)

Anti-Federalists (They were those people who were active in the effort to invent, create, and maintain a Democratic Federated Republic, and their "label" was attached to them by the Nationalists (hiding behind a false front of Federalism) because the Federalists controlled most of the media at the time, and they were able to gag the true promoters of Democratic Federate Republican government, and they were able to fool the MOB, or the Majority, into signing onto a fraudulent Nation State, or Consolidated Government, or Color of Law that was Constructively Interpretable.

People who were way too busy working to make more than they consume to be taxed with the onerous task of enforcing any government other than their own damn business.

If you have no clue as to what I am telling you, then you have been duped, and it is well past time to get past that condition.

If you can correct my errors, then please consider doing so, I need all the help I can get.


"what our government is meant to be"

Constitution, Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

Constitutional Republic is one ruled by the Constitution, not men. That is what our government is meant to be. The Constitution is the law of "We the People" for the government to obey.

The problem is fraudulent banking was eventually allowed, against the Constitution, and has taken over.

Learn or suffer

The Constitution was written to be Constructively Interpretable, or Plausibly Deniable, from the start, as reported by those who opposed it.

The Constitution made slavery legal, which ensured the abomination later called The Civil War, as the Legal Criminals in the North made their Dirty Compromise withe the Legal Criminals in the South, a short respite concerning a battle to be wages later on.

The Constitution allowed the North Legal Criminals to begin enforcing their Legal Money Monopoly while the deal they offered was to return runaway Slaves to the Legal Criminals in the South, and to count those example of property as three fifths of a human being, more or less, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Almost before the ink was dry there was an Conscripted Army Order to assemble so as to suppress a revolt against the money monopoly power which had drove gold out of the Country and the Legal Criminals had the audacity to tax Whiskey, which was then a form of money, where the tax was to be paid with gold, and there was no gold, and everyone knew it, except the dupes who were signing onto the fraudulent deal. Look up

Full Text of the
Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation

Look up too:

Alien and Sedition Acts.

The Constitution was a fraud perpetrated by Nationalists.

Don't get me wrong about Ron Paul: I think he knows the way back to a Republic, possibly getting back to enforcing The Bill of Rights, but The Constitution was a fraud, and he probably knows it.

The Articles of Confederation worked as a Republic, and that is why the Nationalists had to get rid of it.


The Articles of Confederation

The Articles of Confederation worked as a Republic, and that is why the Nationalists had to get rid of it.

If you read Dr. Paul's book Liberty Defined, in the chapter on Democracy, he states pretty clearly that we allowed the Republic to be undermined early on when we compromised on slavery, and that it would have been better if we stayed a Confederation. On the issue of slavery, the founders yielded to the principles of democracy and majority rule, and this was a mistake we paid dearly for. He also mentions Lysander Spooner and the argument he makes that the Constitution should not apply to those who did not consent. He admits this is an interesting argument, but concedes we are unlikely to make much headway with such an argument at a time in history when just trying to restrain the government to the 10th Amendment is difficult enough.

Comments concerning Ron Paul

Comments concerning Ron Paul can be confused with comments concerning people posting on this topic.

Thanks for the references concerning Ron Paul.

My guess is that Ron Paul is familiar with the ratification history sufficient to understand the powers that were engaged at that time. I do not know if he shares the assessment of people like Alexander Hamilton who was known at the time as a Monarchist or Nationalist or someone working toward a Consolidated Government which was not what he claimed to be in public, as his false front version of himself was a Federalist.

My guess is that Ron Paul is aware of that gap between published words and deeds in reference to Alexander Hamilton, and others claiming to be Federalists.

My guess is that Ron Paul is aware of the diametric opposite principles expressed by the actions of some of the Founding Fathers compared to the others, who were labeled as Anti-Federalists despite their support of a Democratic Federated Republic.

That is just my guess, and more information on those points concerning Ron Paul would be much appreciated. Thanks again.


He says a similar thing in the above speech.

Specifically that we allowed democracy to include slavery in the Constitution.

are you a communist?

I kid but you take a very negative view of history.

The Constitution isn't a breathing or living document free to change by the whims of those who hold elective office, but rather a commandment carved in stone complete with chains to bind those elected to represent the people to it's will.

Other than the civil war turmoil, the real destruction of our liberty began in the early 1900. 1913 saw many bad and unconstitutional laws come into being. One of those was the amendment that seperated the Senate from the representation of the State Governments. This was a check on the power of the federal government and its removal has ushered in the acceptance of all the unconstitutional power accumulated by the Federal government. The states were to check the executive via the senate, the people were to check the states through their local elected govt and their representatives in the house, and the courts were to oversee that all was proper according to law. But every new group of officials interprets what they want out of the constitution and point to bad precedent.

So it wasn't the founders but those who came later - wilson, FDR, and now Obama who have taken a fairly good structure of government and bastardized it into what we see today. socialists and communists and other collectivists/ statists have been working at it for a long time.

In all sincerity

Calling someone a communist is like calling someone a pedophile or worse, you, kidding, are calling me a torturing mass murderer, guilty of supporting 20 million deaths, as if I want that which already happened to happen again: in reference to the Boshevick regime which shines as the shining example of communism.


You are falsely associating me with hippies who are now out of fashion.

Jokes are one thing, but why at my expense?

"I kid but you take a very negative view of history."

Me, yes, by all means divert attention away from the actual message and attack the messenger; that is part of the cult of personality, and that is the basis of Stalin's power, if you take history seriously.

History has a very positive side to it, for example, those historical examples of how Liberty works wonders, and the prime example, as far as my study goes, is the time between escape from persecution in Europe, to America, and 1988 [edit: should read 1788] when Liberty was snuffed out by those who enabled their dictatorial regime with that Constitution.

Sure, the Bill of Rights, could be a positive attribute, but then there is the fine print.

How about a score card?

If the players on the side of Liberty know exactly what to do without a score card, then that is fine, just do it; however a score card may actually report information that is vital in the fight to defend Liberty for all - except of course those who fight to destroy Liberty, they don't want liberty, so they won't accept it, of course.

The National Debt Clock serves as a score, but not well understood until someone reads, and understand, the fine print in The Constitution. We can pass on by those fact for now?

"The Constitution isn't a breathing or living document free to change by the whims of those who hold elective office, but rather a commandment carved in stone complete with chains to bind those elected to represent the people to it's will."

Here you miss the point offered in the defense of liberty by such people as Patrick Henry. One of the major issues in opposition to The Constitution was the well understood fact that it was written to be Constructively Interpreted, and examples abound as to the proof of that fact once the fraud was perpetrated into fruition.

Learn for history or repeat dogma, whichever you choose while you still can. If your words are worth publishing on this forum, my assumption is: they are worth defending?

"Other than the civil war turmoil, the real destruction of our liberty began in the early 1900."

I have to get some work done today, so my time is on a leash. I'll bet you are similarly taxed. I will end with an obvious and accurate challenge to that quoted sentence above.

George Washington conscripted an Army as large as the one he incompetently commanded to defeat the British (with the help of the French), to suppress a money competitor, a competitor who refused to pay the tax on their competitive currency. That was a very early example of absolute Despotism, enabled by that fraudulent adoption of that color of law thing.

Then there were those Alien and Sedition Acts, but all that covers up the fact that The Constitution made Slavery Legal in a legal sense.

I have to get some work done. If am credited with more time, more energy, more power, I'll return to see if there are more challenges to meet in this fight for liberty.


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.

The principle of individuality is irrefutable

Not one second is the same as the last one.

Not one interpretation of a word is exactly the same as the next one.

Individuality is an irrefutable fact.

Those who seek to combine everyone into one thing are liars, they are selling a false good, which is anything but good for the victims.

Beware of Greeks bearing horse gifts.


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

what about the second amendment?

It seems to me that the very inclusion of the second amendment would support the idea that the founders did in fact "idealize" the concept of individual sovereignty by the act of ensuring that every person would able to bare arms to defend themselves and their property.


I don't think that I understand what was reported in the reply by EricHoffer, but I think it is important to understand two things:

A greater power will overpower a lesser power.

If a voluntary army can be compared to an involuntary army then it may be possible to know which is more powerful.


A voluntary army existed at the beginning of The Revolutionary War in America before George Washington took it over and began to Dictate how the Voluntary Army behaved, which almost lost the war, had it not been for the help of The French Military.


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.

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.

Well done, thanks

A retractable license to act as a sovereign is given by The People (but only by those who agree to do so) to those who run a Legal Fiction, at the Town level, or the City level, or the County level, or the State level, or the Democratic Federated Republic level, or the Global level, if they agree to do so, and if any one says no, no more, then that license is revoked as far as that one person who no longer agrees is concerned.

The problem always concerns people who decide to use the power they command in the willful injury of innocent people, as some people decide, on their own, to become criminals.

Law is never an agreement made by a criminal, by definition, a criminal does not agree to refrain from injuring innocent people.

Law is for law abiding people, who wish to find that which is agreeable.

When torture is legal, innocent people (non-criminals) should consider waking up.

When mass murder is legal, either the innocent wake up in time, or it will be too late.



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.


So as to avoid misinterpretation the following quote will be exactly the words that I find to be true:

"Individuals are sovereign,"

Then the words, by my interpretation, are false:

", shires and counties are sovereign, states are sivereign, and the usa is sovereign, but "people" aren't sovereign in the abstract, because they have no ability to act."

Then the words are true once again:

"They are only sovereign individually"

There is a very devious fraud perpetrated by some very powerful criminals whereby a thing is said to possess and command will power, and the power to think, and the power to decide, and the power to act as if a thing were human, or as if a thing were God.

This is patently absurd.

A State is only Sovereign in an abstract sense, as in a Legal Fiction: a made up entity, make believe, and only as powerful as the individual people who willfully decide, and act.

This is the end game, the BIG LIE.

Victims are led to believe that The Gun did it, for example, or it was The State that injured those innocent people over there, yes, that is the way it went down, sure, it was the gun, the gun did it, or, The State did it, and meanwhile the actual persons who targeted the innocent victims, are not held to account, and crime perpetuates.

How convenient is such a lie? Somehow The State is blamed, or the gun is blamed, and for lack of an accurate accounting, for lack of a desire for truth, the guilty individuals raid the corporation, and move to the next one, raid it, and all the victims are blaming the legal fiction, rather than the actual individuals who willfully target the victims, and carry out their premeditated crimes.

This needs to be settled once and for all, it is not true that a thing is sovereign in the same sense that an individual is sovereign.

Many individuals can agree to temporarily license a few individuals to operate a fictitious entity, an abstract Sovereign, a temporary creation of revokable power to act on behalf of those who agree, whereby the supposed Sovereignty, and the supposed Power, is only such in a relative sense to the power that stands to threaten those individuals who create this revokable power, this abstract amalgamation of collective might.

If you can understand then look at the shinning examples of each side in this argument.

What is an example of a Sovereign having power over another Sovereign, sufficient to enable one Sovereign to willfully target, and then willfully injure, an innocent Sovereign that has done no one any wrong whatsoever?

Every attempt to answer the question that arrives at the determination that the guilty party is anything but an individual person, or two, or three, where the only thing connecting those individuals is that they shared the same willful design to target, and they shared the willful perpetration of the act to injure the targeted victim, is a bold faced lie, or a very serious error that serves to aid and abet the criminals at the expense of the victims: past, present, and future.


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?

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.


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

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.

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.

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



"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?"


Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Debbie's picture

Just fantastic! Shows the

Just fantastic! Shows the genius of this man.


My favorite quote from this speech...

"The Constitution no longer restrains the government. The government restrains the people in all they do."