22 votes

99.9% of Americans do not know the difference between a Democracy, and a Republic.

I submit this for peer review.
is this true because I live in Arkansas? or is it true where you live also?

I submit that if a person cannot elucidate the difference between the two easily, and without much thought involved.
how could they tell the difference?
and...if they cannot tell the difference between the two..... and if they cannot define the difference between the two.... is there any point in talking to them further? until this point is clarified?

it is an easy question to ask people. it is also non-provocative and informing.

yes, we are (or were) a Republic. and so is China.

I invite you to ask this simple question. ask the smartest people you know.
please share your findings.
peace.

update.

Comment viewing options

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

That's why representatives should be held to their oaths.

Democracy is mob rule and soft communism.
Our republican form of government was designed to protect the rights of individuals from mob rule.
We should decriminalize dueling.

I'd prefer a Confederation

Republic is good, a confederation is better. The best example: Switzerland ("CH" - Confederatio Helvetica).

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

.

Lenin The State and Revolution (1917)

"A nationalized planned economy needs democracy, as the human body needs oxygen."

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

Well I wouldnt say 99%, more

Well I wouldnt say 99%, more like 70-80%. Not suprising though given that the two words are used interchangably now a days.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

A republic

has a Constitution that limits the powers of the state, the people running it, and the citizens in it to do as they please. It upholds a rule of law. A Republic also has a system whereby the citizens elect smart people, and usually people of some means that have a deep committment to the particular ordered group. Those electors act as jurors to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, and at the same time gather input from the people they represent in order to act in accordance with the public will, but only if the public will makes sense and is constitutional. Democratic principles allow for voting in order to express their will but also to ensure that their electors do not become tyrannical.

A Republic is Based Upon a Original Compact That Cannot Change.

A Republic is Based Upon an Original Compact That Cannot Change.

Changes are only allowed where the Original Compact "allows" for Change to occur

i.e. Only "WITHIN" the "delegated" powers.

When change occurs in the Compact itself, the Compact is Dissolved. The government is Dissolved.

In the US, The Constitution was created as a LIMITED compact.

The US Constitution is a LIMITED Republic for a sole purpose;

Not to control, but to have a "guide" by which the states, which are INDEPENDENT REPUBLICS IN THEMSELVES, will "consensually" remain United.

*Note that the difference between the "US Republic"s" and the "China Republic" is that the "US Republics" are based upon "COMMON LAW" Principles; To Understand what this is, read John Lock on Civil Government: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo... And the Absolute Rights of the Colonists, by Samuel Adams: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Rights_of_the_Colonists/r...

The "Supremacy" is in the US Constitution (as it limits the federal government); And in Common Law Principles.

The Supremacy is NOT in the Federal Legislative, as theirs is a VERY LIMITED power:

-------

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Mr. GEORGE MASON "then observed that he would willingly give them exclusive (supremacy) power, as far as respected the police and good government OF THE "PLACE" (TEN MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC); but he would give them "NO MORE", because he thought it unnecessary. He was very willing to give them, in this as well as in all other cases, those powers which he thought indispensably necessary.

Mr. JAMES MADISON. ".... I cannot comprehend that the >>>"POWER OF LEGISLATING" over a "SMALL DISTRICT", which "CANNOT EXCEED TEN MILES SQUARE", and "MAY NOT BE MORE" THAN "ONE MILE", will involve the dangers which he (PATRICK HENRY & GEORGE MASON) apprehends. If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the last thing that would enter into the mind of any man to grant exclusive advantages, in a "VERY CIRCUMSCRIBED", to the prejudice of the community at large."

"....... Let me remark, if not already remarked, that there must be a cession, by particular states, of the "DISTRICT" to Congress, and that the states may settle the terms of the cession. The states may make what stipulation they please in it, and,

if they apprehend "ANY DANGER", they (The States and People) may "REFUSE it ALTOGETHER".... "

MR. EDMUND PENDLETON: "....Why oppose this power? Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant "exclusive privileges" to citizens residing within that place (10 MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC); the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says.

It could have "NO OPERATION" without (OUTSIDE) the limits of THAT DISTRICT (10 MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC).

Were Congress to make a law granting them an "exclusive privilege" of trading to the East Indies, it could have "NO EFFECT" the moment it would go without THAT "PLACE" (10 MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC);

for their "exclusive" (FEDERAL SUPREMACY) power is "CONFINED" to "THAT DISTRICT" (10 MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC).

Were they to pass such a law,it would be nugatory (VOID); and every member of the community at large could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district.

This exclusive power is limited to "THAT PLACE" "SOLELY", (10 MILES SQUARE OF WASHINGTON, DC) for their "own" preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary. ..."

-------

The "DELEGATED" changes, allowing the Federal legislative "LIMITED" "democratic" powers mentioned in the Constitution, where "expressly defined" in the "RATIFYING CONVENTIONS" as to the "SCOPE" and "LIMITATION"; Of which, they could ARROGATE "NO NEW POWERS" BY "ANY" MEANS:

-------

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

M. EDMUND PENDLETON: "...I understand that clause as NOT going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED" powers. What can it act upon? Some power given by "THIS" Constitution. If they should be about to "pass a law" in "consequence of this (supremacy / sweeping) clause", they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers", but can by >>>"NO MEANS" depart from them,

>>>(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers"."

(APP: i.e. changing the "delegated power of "ENUMERATED" taxation, into "UN-ENUMERATED" taxation, is a NEW and ARROGATED power;

The "income tax" remains "unconstitutional" and a UN-ENIMERATED tax can NEVER be "ratified or amended", because that would be a "MEANS" of "DEPARTING" from the EXPRESSLY LIMITED "DELEGATED" power granted in the Original Compact.)

-------

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson 10 years after the Constitution was signed, make this abundantly clear:

Virginia Resolution of 1798

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

James Madison:

"RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support "the government" of the United States in all measures "warranted" by "the former".

That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the "States", to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the "only basis" of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the "plain sense and intention" of the instrument constituting the "compact";

as "NO FURTHER VALID" that they are authorized by the grants "ENUMERATED" in "THAT COMPACT"; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of "OTHER" powers, "NOT" granted by the "SAID" COMPACT, the STATES who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in "DUTY BOUND", to "INTERPOSE" for arresting the progress of the "EVIL", and for maintaining within their RESPECTIVE LIMITS, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

That the General Assembly doth also express its DEEP REGRET, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to "enlarge its powers by FORCED constructions" of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a "DESIGN" to "EXPOUND" certain >>>"GENERAL "PHRASES" (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular "ENUMERATION" which NECESSARILY "EXPLAINS AND LIMITS" THE GENERAL PHRASES;

and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into "ONE sovereignty" (APP: i.e. ONE NATION - >>>NO WHERE INTENDED),

the obvious tendency and "inevitable consequence" of which would be, to >>>"TRANSFORM" the present "REPUBLICAN" "SYSTEM" (REPUBLIC"S") of the United States,

into "an absolute", or "at best" a mixed >>>"MONARCHY".

(i.e. NOT A REPUBLIC)

That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power "NO WHERE DELEGATED" to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, SUBVERTS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power NOT delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of FREE COMMUNICATION AMONG THE PEOPLE THEREON, which has ever been justly deemed, the ONLY effectual GUARDIAN of EVERY OTHER RIGHT

That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, "the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press

>>>>"CANNOT" be cancelled, abridged, restrained, "OR MODIFIED" by "ANY" authority of the "United States" (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT),"

and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from EVERY possible attack of "sophistry or ambition", having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution;

it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and "CRIMINAL DEGENERACY", if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other (RIGHTS).

That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all;

and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the "PLEDGE" of "mutual friendship", and the instrument of mutual happiness;

the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people.

That the Governor be desired, to transmit a copy of the foregoing Resolutions to the executive authority of each of the other states, with a request that the same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this state in the Congress of the United States.

Agreed to by the Senate, December 24, 1798

-------

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

Thomas Jefferson:

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for "special purposes" — "delegated" to that government "certain definite" powers, RESERVING, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their OWN self-government;

and that WHENSOEVER the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are "UNAUTHORITATIVE", "VOID", and of "NO FORCE":

that to this compact "each State" acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this COMPACT was "NOT" made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself

(APP: i.e. The Federal Supreme Court, Executive or Legislative are not the final judge);

since that would have made "its discretion", and "NOT THE CONSTITUTION", the "MEASURE" of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge,

"EACH" party has an EQUAL right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress..

2. " Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish:

a.) treason,
b.) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States,
c.) piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and
d.) offenses against the law of nations,

and >>>> NO OTHER CRIMES >>>"WHATSOEVER";

and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,"

therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (>>>> and ALL their OTHER ACTS which assume to CREATE, DEFINE, or PUNISH crimes, OTHER than THOSE so "ENUMERATED" in the Constitution,)

>>> are "ALTOGETHER" "VOID", and of "NO FORCE";

and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY to the respective "STATES", each within its own territory...."

-------

John Locke - On the DISSOLUTION OF GOVERNMENT, Establishes the Foundations of this principle:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...

John Locke #212. "Besides this overturning from without, governments are dissolved from within:

First. When the legislative is altered, civil society being a state of peace amongst those who are of it, from whom the state of war is excluded by the umpirage which they have provided in their legislative for the ending all differences that may arise amongst any of them; it is in their legislative that the members of a commonwealth are united and combined together into one coherent living body. This is the soul that gives form, life, and unity to the commonwealth; from hence the several members have their mutual influence, sympathy, and connection; and therefore when the legislative is broken, or dissolved, dissolution and death follows. For the essence and union of the society consisting in having one will, the legislative, when once established by the majority, has the declaring and, as it were, keeping of that will.

The "constitution of the legislative" is the first and "fundamental act" of society, whereby provision is made for the "CONTINUATION of their union under the direction of persons and bonds of laws, made by persons authorised thereunto", by the consent and appointment of the people, without which no one man, or number of men, amongst them can have authority of making laws that shall be binding to the rest. When any one, or more, shall take upon them to make laws whom the people have not appointed so to do, they make laws without authority, which the people are not therefore bound to obey; by which means they come again to be out of subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new legislative, as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of those who, without authority, would impose anything upon them. Every one is at the disposure of his own will, when those who had, by the "DELEGATION" of the society, the declaring of the public will, are excluded from it, and others USURP the place who have NO SUCH AUTHORITY OR DELEGATION.

213. This being usually brought about by such in the commonwealth, who "MISUSE" the power they have, it is hard to consider it aright, and know at whose door to lay it, without knowing the form of government in which it happens. Let us suppose, then, the legislative placed in the concurrence of three distinct persons: -- First, a single hereditary person having the constant, supreme, executive power, and with it the power of convoking and dissolving the other two within certain periods of time. Secondly, an assembly of hereditary nobility. Thirdly, an assembly of representatives chosen, pro tempore, by the people. Such a form of government supposed, it is evident:

214. First, that when such a single person or prince sets up his own arbitrary will in place of the laws which are the will of the society declared by the legislative, then the legislative is changed. For that being, in effect, the legislative whose rules and laws are put in execution, and required to be obeyed, when other laws are set up, and other rules pretended and enforced than what the legislative, constituted by the society, have enacted, it is plain that the legislative is changed. Whoever introduces new laws, not being thereunto authorised, by the "fundamental appointment" of the society, or subverts the old, disowns and overturns the power by which they were made, and so sets up a new legislative.

215. Secondly, when the prince hinders the legislative from assembling in its due time, or from acting freely, pursuant to those ends for which it was constituted, the legislative is altered. For it is not a certain number of men -- no, nor their meeting, unless they have also freedom of debating and leisure of perfecting what is for the good of the society, wherein the legislative consists; when these are taken away, or altered, so as to deprive the society of the due exercise of their power, the legislative is truly altered. For it is not names that constitute governments, but the use and exercise of those powers that were intended to accompany them; so that he who takes away the freedom, or hinders the acting of the legislative in its due seasons, in effect takes away the legislative, and puts an end to the government.

216. Thirdly, when, by the arbitrary power of the prince, the electors or ways of election are altered without the consent and contrary to the common interest of the people, there also the legislative is altered. For if others than those whom the society hath authorised thereunto do choose, or in another way than what the society hath prescribed, those chosen are not the legislative appointed by the people.

217. Fourthly, the delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince or by the legislative, is certainly a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government. For the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one entire, free, independent society to be governed by its own laws, this is lost whenever they are given up into the power of another.

218. Why, in such a constitution as this, the dissolution of the government in these cases is to be imputed to the prince is evident, because he, having the force, treasure, and offices of the State to employ, and often persuading himself or being flattered by others, that, as supreme magistrate, he is incapable of control; he alone is in a condition to make great advances towards such changes under PRETENCE of lawful authority, and has it in his hands to terrify or suppress opposers as factious, seditious, and enemies to the government; whereas no other part of the legislative, or people, is capable by themselves to attempt any alteration of the legislative without open and visible rebellion, apt enough to be taken notice of, which, when it prevails, produces effects very little different from foreign conquest. Besides, the prince, in such a form of government, having the power of dissolving the other parts of the legislative, and thereby rendering them private persons, they can never, in opposition to him, or without his concurrence, alter the legislative by a law, his consent being necessary to give any of their decrees that sanction. But yet so far as the other parts of the legislative any way contribute to any attempt upon the government, and do either promote, or not, what lies in them, hinder such designs, they are guilty, and partake in this, which is certainly the greatest crime men can be guilty of one towards another."..."

-------

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/

Educate Yourself. Educate Others.

Now on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nat...

On the Daily Paul: http://www.dailypaul.com/user/14674

Download the Free PDF of these 4 documents for your phone: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/American_Patriot_Party.pdf

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

A lot of people on DP dont want a Republic either.....

Many people here cringe from or outright refuse the political model of delegating their individual powers to a delegate (representative) to vote on their behalf.

Many are lead to believe that

Many are lead to believe that a Democracy is a good thing, because it allows all voices to be heart. Truth is, the only voices heard in a Democracy is the majority's voice. The minority is glazed over. That's why a Republic, rule by law, law that requires 100% ratification, is the only true way to protect everyone not just the majority.

I use this question often to people. Only one person has gotten it right only because she sensed it was a trick question. She is a liberal but an open minded liberal and graduate from Princeton University. I've infused her with the concepts of gun ownership, as she realized she actually felt safe around me and my XD40 Subcompact concealed under my shirt, no less safe.

Not all liberals are hopeless. Most conservatives aren't either.

But the majority might be. Which is why I want rule by law not rule by the majority.

---------------------------------
Finally HOME! For Good!
---------------------------------
I am an Oath Keeper
I am an Agnostic
I am a father and I want my children to know true freedom in their lifetime.

fireant's picture

Interesting that Gerald Celente, an alleged leading thinker for

liberty lovers, advocates direct democracy via internet voting.
Don't get me wrong. I like his entertaining bombast as much as anyone, but direct democracy voting is jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Undo what Wilson did

great term there

"entertaining bombast" is right.

I get tired of hearing him predict the end of the world.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Opposite meanings

Often is the case that the meanings of words are changed by those whose intention is to deceive.

Democracy was a word used extensively by those in these former constitutionally limited republics during the events that became known as The Revolution.

Here are two examples:

1.
"It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy. It has fixed the form by a scale parallel in all cases to the extent of the principle. What Athens was in miniature, America will be in magnitude. The one was the wonder of the ancient world; the other is becoming the admiration and model of the present. It is the easiest of all the forms of government to be understood, and the most eligible in practise; and excludes at once the ignorance and insecurity of the hereditary mode, and the inconvenience of the simple democracy."
Thomas Paine RIGHTS OF MAN
http://library.mises.org/books/Thomas%20Paine/The%20Complete...

2.
"Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, I am much obliged to the very worthy gentleman for his encomium. I wish I was possessed with talents, or possessed of any thing that might enable me to elucidate this great subject. I am not free from suspicion: I am apt to entertain doubts. I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing —the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England—a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland—an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of these great consideration, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans? It is said eight states have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve states and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government."
Patrick Henry June 5th 1788
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/...

A claim by someone, whoever they may be, stating that democracy is mob rule according to them and their mob is a self confessed contradiction is it not?

Joe

democracy is an over-used term

as people often refer to "western style democracy" when there is no country in the west that is a true democracy. It is and for a long time has been loosely used to refer to any form of government where the will of the people is somehow expressed - whether directly (not aware of any modern examples of such) or indirectly (in various forms of Republics).

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Claims of authority

Claims of authority over the meaning of words aside, and instead of that there can be many offers of meanings of words, so as to find the meaning that works for those who care to know better.

Example:

Rights of Man (Thomas Paine)

_____________________________________________________
Referring, then, to the original simple democracy, it affords the true data from which government on a large scale can begin. It is incapable of extension, not from its principle, but from the inconvenience of its form; and monarchy and aristocracy, from their incapacity. Retaining, then, democracy as the ground, and rejecting the corrupt systems of monarchy and aristocracy, the representative system naturally presents itself; remedying at once the defects of the simple democracy as to form, and the incapacity of the other two with respect to knowledge.

Simple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of
secondary means. By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature.

It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is
representation ingrafted upon democracy. It has fixed the form by a
scale parallel in all cases to the extent of the principle. What Athens was in miniature, America will be in magnitude. The one was the wonder of the ancient world; the other is becoming the admiration and model of the present. It is the easiest of all the forms of government to be understood, and the most eligible in practise; and excludes at once the ignorance and insecurity of the hereditary mode, and the inconvenience of the simple democracy.

It is impossible to conceive a system of government capable of acting
over such an extent of territory, and such a circle of interests, as is immediately produced by the operation of representation. France, great and popular as it is, is but a spot in the capaciousness of the system. It adapts itself to all possible cases. It is preferable to simple democracy even in small territories. Athens, by representation, would have outrivalled her own democracy.

That which is called government, or rather that which we ought to
conceive government to be, is no more than some common center, in
which all the parts of society unite. This cannot be accomplished by any method so conducive to the various interests of the community, as by the representative system.
________________________________________________________

Easy to understand for some, others can't allow the targeted victims to know the facts, since knowing the facts empower the targeted victims to avoid being victims; hence the often resort to lies told by well paid liars.

Joe

blabber blabber "claims of authority" blabber blabber

so, you don't like the accepted definitions of things, and instead of learning about history and about our system, you create your own definitions and then supplant them when reading historic documents. This way, you can pretend that historic figures said things they never said. Why, you even get to reference their quotes as proof!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Meaning versus falsehood

The battle if ideas is not new.

On one hand is the idea that accurate information is worth sharing to everyone since everyone becomes more powerful as a result of knowing accurate information.

On the other hand are the people that can be accurately known as criminals, and among these criminals sharing an alternative idea is the idea that accurate information that accurately identifies the criminals is not good for criminals if such information were to fall into the hands of just anyone.

How can anyone accurately identify an blabbering idiot?

Joe

I have the answer

if he posts here and posts frequently in favor of sovereign citizen theories, he is a blabbering idiot. If the shoe fits...

Accurate information is worth sharing. That is why the correct definitions of things is important.

Having your own "pet definition" of terms like "republic" might give you a way to argue some kind of gibberish nonsense argument to your fake legal theory society but it doesn't provide accurate information and is in fact designed to do the opposite, whether you know it or not. It is totally disingenuous to simply misdefine terms and then call that an "alternate analysis" especially when you're quoting historic documents.

That you call anyone who uses a standard dictionary meaning of the term "republic" a "criminal" shows the level of idiocy in your analysis. And also aids in identifying blabbering idiots.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

The Prince defines the standard?

Criminals dictate the meanings of their enforced standard, words, extortion payment schedules, who is licensed to torture, mass murder, so on and so forth.

http://www.amazon.com/Prince-Bantam-Classics-Niccolo-Machiav...

From my copy:
________________________________________________________
Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual.
____________________________________________________________

Reasonable people choose the highest quality and lowest cost definitions that prove to be true over time.

The Swiss have managed to define how they avoid the demonstrations of definitions of meanings with large piles of tortured and murdered bodies.

6 million here, 20 million there, on and on, all around the Swiss, for some odd, inexplicable, non-reason according to well paid liars covering up the crimes of their, ahhhh, employers?

Joe

the Swiss have some good ideas

no doubt, and so did our founding fathers*

* by that I mean their actual ideas, not 'alternative' interpretations of them, spun online 250 years later.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Criminal ideas?

Fraud for example?

http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14...

________________________________________
The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.
__________________________________________________________

Speaking of spinning the facts?

Who, of all people, would desire the spreading of falsehoods?

Of what interest is it of theirs to falsify the facts so meticulously?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

17 Trillion borrowed by the criminals while the same criminals steal 2.7 Trillion and then the same criminals claim that the people they borrowed and stole 19.4 Trillion owe them National Interest?

Of course if they are that good a lying who can trust their accounting books, or their hired liars?

Joe

not gonna bother

if you can't do something other than quote things that are barely related, not gonna read it. You're just grasping at straws, as they say. I assume you'll have your own definition for that as well.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

I think somethings bear repeating

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkwjtbTjTsE

That information has gained currency, for example, which helps people understand why the liars pay themselves so much for each lie.

Joe

make the effort to put a concept into words

I'm not going to give up 10 minutes of my life, or however long, to a fake law video on youtube.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Dictators handbook?

The offer of information is offered.

The claim of authority as to what I may or may not "make the effort" to do is rejected.

Those who have an interest in knowing why the liars pay themselves so much for each lie might find the information offered in the video useful toward reaching that goal of knowing better.

Joe

it's Friday, all hail our leader Beldar Conehead!

In the immortal words of Beldar, "consume mass quantities"...oh wait, maybe that explains your post!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

When is enough enough?

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/bsbhm2.html

http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/long.html

When a human being realizes that the criminals have taken over, the human being finds remedy.

This is not news, yet the high paid liars are busy covering up the accurate information that is not news.

Joe

China

Most definitely has rule by men and not by laws. Pre-determined verdicts and outcomes.

Being a lawyer in China must be a very easy job lol

donvino

"Rule of Law" can be based on ANYTHING.

it does not have to apply to the government, seems to me that would be the case in China.

I wish this post could gain some traction, or that someone else would write a better one than I have.

Republic:

Republic:
"Under this form of government, individual freedom and responsibility are maximized. The individual is sovereign and his rights are sacrosanct.

Individuals are free to act without permission, but must never impose without consent. Everyone has an equal right to compete in the marketplace, succeed or fail on their own, and pursue their own happiness restrained only by the rights of others to do the same. Republics reject as a danger to liberty the public interest doctrine espoused in democracies, because, as John Adams articulated, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."- Benedict D LaRosa

Live in Liberty
Tom Rankin

The Constitution cannot defend itself in a Democracy but it can

The Constitution cannot defend itself in a Democracy but it can in a Republic.

The republican form of government acknowledges that the sovereign power is founded in the people, individually, not in the collective or whole body of free citizens, as in a democratic form. Thus no majority can deprive a minority of their sovereign rights and powers.

Live in Liberty
Tom Rankin

Sovereignty is the key

You hit the nail on the head. The key is individual sovereignty, ie. who reigns, ie. rules in your life - you? or someone else? In a republic, the individual is sovereign and his rule is only limited by the sovereign rights of other individuals. On a large scale, individual sovereignty can only be maintained by the rule of law, preferably with a government strictly defined and limited by a written constitution with individual rights protected from infringement by the government, but once that rule of law is violated, distorted or ignored, as it always will be by those in power, it soon degenerates into a democracy or other form of tyranny. The "sovereigns" in a democracy are "the people" collectively, which essentially means that the individual's rights are only those that are tolerated, permitted or granted by the people collectively, ie. democractically. Our founders aborred democracy as a form of government and saw it as an unstable and dangerous threat to liberty, along with monarchies and oligarchies.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?