Our Founders Gave us a Republic not a democracy - Ron Paul Knows the Difference
Submitted by cactus1010 on Mon, 12/17/2007 - 11:32and so should every one else in government, in addition, to every man, women and child in this country.
However, thanks to our dumbed down Old Media and our educational system there are many who believe our form of government is a "democracy."
All you have to do to know this is true is to listen to any of the talking heads.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/161/what-does-freedom-re...
We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.
George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.
The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?
A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.
Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.
















Just in case there is any confusion
about who wrote this piece...it wasn't me, it was Ron Paul. I wrote everything above the link, everything below the link was written by Dr. Paul.
There's one important piece of the puzzle we're missing...
and that is that the real power must remain close to the individual, at the state level.
The minute the federal sphere starts interfering with the states the power starts to shift away from the individual and closer to where external influences live.
The more these external influences impose their will at the Federal level the more the individual becomes alienated and disillusioned.
The more the individual becomes detached from the political process the more the system of government becomes closer to a totalitarian state or a fascist state. Well, this is where we are today!
We must restore the power back to the state level, closer to the individual where it can be better controlled and restrained.
Ron Paul understands this. One more reason to vote for him.
JB
"You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more."
terrific post
Congratulations on a wonderfully concise and pointed illustration of the difference between a republic and a democracy. As Benjamin
Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." A Republic has the same two wolves and a sheep, but the sheep has all the guns.
If you want more division in this country be more "democratic"
The politicians love a "democracy"! In a Republic every citizen gets the maximum benefit of his / her creator given rights. In a "democracy" we get to "chose" (umm..) or the politicians get to chose. And what usually happens? More and more it seems. That's right! 51% win and 49% lose. Half the country ends up disatisfied with the results, more campaign money is needed to turn around the results. It stinks, voting for everything just plain stinks. You DON'T need to vote for every damn thing if you have your unalienable rights...
"The question is not who will let me- the question is who will stop me" - Ayn Rand
I agree
"In a Republic every citizen gets the maximum benefit of his / her creator given rights."
But so many people in this country have been conditioned to believe everything needs to be voted on and the government is to take care of them from cradle to grave.
The federal government was not created by our Founders to play the role it plays in our lives today.
It was mainly created to provide for our National Defense and that was basically it. Everything else was to be decided by each individual state. Even who our Senators were to be. That was until the 17th amendment. Which by the way, should be repealed. We should go back to the way our Founders intended Senators to be chosen.
This is want Jefferson had to say about big government:
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
And that includes our freedom and liberty.
Founders' quotes
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
Man, I see a lot of Founders' quotes on these posts, and they are very good. Can anyone tell me what are the best books/sources for sayings and writings of the Founding Fathers? I only know about the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, but of course those don't include Jefferson, Franklin, or Washington, for example. Where are these quotes coming from?
------------------------------------------------------------
"It is not the abuse of power, it is the power to abuse."
- Michael Cloud, Libertarian
Here's a link I use quite a bit
http://www.brainyquote.com/search_results.html?domains=www.b...
i read the whole thing thanks
i will give it to my children to read as they are 16 and 21 i appreciate it. all should do the same.
I was taught poorly for sure
I never understood the difference until my late 20s. Why? Am I stupid? I am an engineer after all. Well, first I had no interest as a teen other than getting work out of the way to build hobbies and get laid. Second, not one teacher ever put the definitions on the board or elaborated on exactly what the premise of each party is all about....Sure we had debates and mock politics, but we always just argued about issues and not the core philosophy. Then there's economics.....I was fortunate enough to have a forensics class where the teacher had us play a fictitious investment portfolio....fun but still not the discussion of how capitalism should balance free trade and law.
Anyways, my point is that I was thinking about important things, but our core national principles really aren't delved into that much in public school. Now you add taking out the pledge of allegiance and you have a ripe low income world labor source in the making.
Democracy or Republic?
Required reading:
http://www.devvy.com/pdf/larosa/larosa_democracy_or_republic...
Also see the Michael Badnarik constitution class videos on Google Video. Worth every single minute of the seven hour class.
I'm ashamed to say I voted
I'm ashamed to say I voted for Badnarik when he ran for President, based on the content of his 'lessons'. They were sloppily organized, and he takes every opportunity to misconstrue the true intent of the Constitution. I believe Ron Paul has a firmer grasp on the Constitution than Badnarik.
..................
"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic..." —Alan Moore
Democracy is not a form of government
it is the way people participate in a form of government. There's a lot of misunderstanding about democracy. We need to go back to it's origins in Greece.
This country is a Republic!
JB
"You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more."
That's the problem
most people in this country think democracy is our form of government. The Old Media keeps referring to our nation as being a democracy, so what else are people to think? After all most believe that if it isn't in the news it just isn't so.
And Republic is rarely if ever mentioned in the news.
body of Republic democracy is a form not state
whether you call it democracy or a republic. its green communism. Green Communism is the base of the republic of Iran, people republic of communist china, i think republic has been falsified since Greece had empiricist roots.
Democracy = Senate
Republic = Representatives
see the division
Right. And....
I believe that democracy used to be a potentially valid means of participating in a government-when people associated elected officials with 'public servants'.
Instead of leaders in charge of us....which makes the idea of participatory democracy an illusion at best.
OH,and I do think that democratic participation is almost inherent in any group of people collectively consenting to live and interact together-ie,a family,group of friends,team-
most often,it will be that the minority will go along with the majority,b/c they would like to be with the rest. [ie,I am happy to do something b/c my 6 yr old would like to do it,b/c the underlying desire is that I want to be with my son.]Occasionally the minority will simply do their own thing instead. There is a sacrifice of sovereignty,done voluntarily,in many aspects of life. An exchange in this case takes place.
Democracy is said to be based on the idea of 'popular sovereignty',whereby individuals consent to give up part of their sovereignty in exchange for social order.
This speaks to the idea that democracy has always been intended for social control,not freedom. 'Order out of Chaos',right?
With true freedom,democratic participation in government becomes an oxy-moron.
Right. And....
oops,double post.
and um and um
there should be term limitations at every level to allow equal participation in the representative form we have. Roosevelt was president 16 years, maybe some crusaders would be set straight if right and left wasn't hoarded.
maybe it would be harder to control things if the two term went from presidents to mayors, there was an american student who won public office and was stripped of that title by opponents. obviously greed is involved.
Our Founders never intended that
serving in Congress was to be a career. They felt they were obligated to serve and then go home to whatever their chosen career was.
And if "We the People" bombarded Congress like we did over the "comprehensive immigration" bill and demand that these freeloaders put a cap on what they can earn, and eliminate all gifts and perks such as pension and health coverage, etc. In addition to prosecuting all those who accept graft, with no opportunity for a plea deal.
Then maybe if we were to demand these changes we may get only those who want to serve America, instead of those who want to serve themselves
And if they don't do as we demand then, it is up to us to implement term limits and we do that with our vote.
Excellent point and excellent essay
I often make the same point in forums - particularly financial forums where words such as "inflation" and "deflation" and "bubble" are bandied about, yet commonly found to have no moorings. Newspeak doesn't require new words when you can misuse an old one and go unchallenged.
The key part of winning this election is waking those who are still "asleep". Without understanding that we are NOT a "democracy" but rather a "republic", the importance of the Constitution is nearly impossible to convey. I use the word "republic" a lot and generally try to either sneak in the definition or ask whether the audience knows the difference. Very few, I've found, know the difference. I don't think that's coincidence.
Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28
Please use spell check, it's not only free,but...
...fun to use.
Attend a Church of your choice this Saturday.
G_d bless
Attend a Church of your choice this Saturday.
G_d bless
Many of us already know who you are saul! A TROLL
Go back to Huckabee. We don't want you here!
"You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more."
I did
but if you will tell me which word you think is misspelled, I'll gladly check it again.
Just another Spell Check Monitor without anything else to do
There are several of them on here, and all they "contribute" is this bewildering ability to demean people for absolutely no positive effect, and enjoy it.
Earlier there was a stink because someone spelled subtle as "suttle". Oh my goodness! We're going to lose the election now! LOL Of course they usually point to "reading the posting rules". Which I'm sure would also ask that you keep your comments relevant, so maybe we need to hire the "relevance police".
But then maybe they just have stock in "spell check". LOL Either way they just don't have anything better to do than to point out SUPPOSED shortcomings of others. Not the average Ron Paul fans if you ask me.
Clean Spelling, Clean Thinking
The importance of correct spelling (even in a forum post) should never be discounted. Like muddled speaking, muddled writing exposes muddled thinking. And that's not to say that I don't make spelling mistakes myself at times.
I'm Allegheny Alligator and Firefox approved this spelling.
UPDATED...to indicate that the original post deserves no criticism on these points.
KNITpiKin?
yea ISNT there mo impotant things to talk about
your spelling is fine. I think "saul" is lost at C. -n
I didn't see any misspellings so I checked your whole writing twice - first in firefox's built in spell check (awesome for someone like me who has a lot of typos) and then in open office. You had one word that wasn't recognized but is probably correct anyway.
Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28
Thank You
for your help.
Cactus - I'd like to see your essay on a blog
where it might have a longer shelf life. In particular, I think your comments would be great for a site which organized good responses to questions on issues and philosophy which come up when you are attempting to reach new supporters.
Paul is branded an "eccentric", "radical", or worse when ALL he is saying is that the US has a "rule of law" called the Constitution and that MOST of the "solutions" be proposed by candidates are simply illegal under the Constitution since the Constitution (specifically the 10th Amendment) makes crystal clear that the scope of Federal authority is severely limited.
So the question I like to ask people is "When you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, do you mean it?" They say, "yes!". I point out that the Pledge specifically says "...and to the REPUBLIC for which it Stands". I then explain how the Republic IS the Constitution. I ask "are you for or against the US Constitution?". (If someone says they are against it, I don't waste any further time - what else can I say...there are enemies of the Republic everywhere.)
At this point I like to pull out a handy copy of the Constitution plus Bill of Rights. First I point out that the whole thing is *quite* short and written in English so clear that anyone can understand most of it with ease.
In particular I like to flip to the 10th Amendment and read : "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I ask if that is clear enough. I ask if they think a lawyer is necessary to "interpret" the meaning of that Amendment. I point out that the Founding Fathers were smart men and very well educated. That they wrote with great specificity and clarity specifically because they wanted to make sure the Federal government could never grow to become what it has become.
I point out that Ron Paul, and only Ron Paul, speaks clearly, respects the Constitution, and follows the law.
From there the conversation goes where it goes, but that is the framework in which I try to work. I find that once people agree that they support the Constitution and have a copy in their hands, with the 10th right in front of them, that the whole conversation takes on a different demeanor. Either that, or I find I am dealing with someone who wants pork at any price ... even if they have to live in a cage in order to get their pork meal, and I disengage.
You can't force people to abandon The Matrix. You can only educate them.
Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28
Agreed.
I love this line:
You can't force people to abandon The Matrix. You can only educate them.
Although,I don't believe you can educate them,either. Only expose them to information and ideas.
And,I think this thread is a great place for Cactus to post this piece.
It is after all,directly from RP"s website!!!! A recent highlight ont he campaign's part.
I just sent this article out to people yesterday,actually. B/C I,too,get so tired of explaining the difference.
This IS a website to help get RP elected,and advance the causes of liberty and freedom,after all. A great place to discuss this.
And alot more interesting than reading a thread about where people live!!! [where y'at???]