Democracy v. Republic

I’ve had it with pundits, politicians, and people who should know better that continuously refer to our country as a democracy.  The latest such reference was by renowned political commentator Thomas Friedman, who has never been confused with an intelligent person. But he has lots of company among the chattering classes, and even more so from among our so-called educators. At every educational level, teachers, professors, administrators, and even the elite collegiate Boards-of-Directors wrongly refer to the United States as a democracy and, in general, display an overall ignorance of American history and our Founding principles. And unfortunately, our youth (and their parent-underwriters) are the unwitting victims of this ignorance. At one time, our educators and learned elders passed on their wisdom to an eagerly receptive youth armed with the critical thinking skills necessary to challenge any such drivel. Now, our elders can be confidently relied upon to confer their collective stupidity upon a submissive, blindly receptive youth.

Repeat after me—the United States is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. The Founders, to a man, loathed and feared democracy. This is clearly supported by this selection of excerpts which illustrate why the Founders struggled mightily to forge a Republic rather than a democracy:

James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10:

In a pure democracy, “there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.”

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, “… that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”

John Adams said, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Chief Justice John Marshall observed,

“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.

In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison gave a comprehensive dissertation on how a Republic would guard against such losses of freedom, in an effort to get our proposed Constitution ratified by the people and their states.

The following are excerpts from Madison’s Federalist #10:

… When a majority is included in the faction, the form of popular government … enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. …

… Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security and the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. …

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.

Unlike today’s benighted political hacks, the Founders were deeply immersed in ancient history and the Classics, mostly Greece and Rome.  And they could read the Classics and comment about them fluently in the languages in which the texts were originally written. Latin and Greek were required courses of study in nearly every one-room schoolhouse in nearly every village and hamlet.

Some time ago, I was fortunate to have acquired an early 1700’s school reader. Today’s Millennials would become apoplectic and break out in hives if they had to master the material in this reader.  For example, say, schoolmaster to student:

“Mr. Penopscot, please stand and recite the declension of the infinitive “to be” in both Latin and Greek. Any mistakes will result in your being responsible for cleaning the common outdoor latrine for a month.”

The Founding generation knew instinctively that independence and liberty could not be secured and maintained without a clear understanding of these principles.  And they had no aversion to the swift application of corporal punishment like the one that befell our unfortunate fictional Mr. Penopscot.  Today’s parents would quickly lawyer up to challenge these harsh curricular standards, while the kids would endure years of mandatory emotional counseling to comfort them through such trauma.

At one time, nearly every student knew the differences between a democracy v. republic, dependence v. independence, God’s Law, natural law, and common law. Today’s youth (and most adults) are woefully ignorant in the basics of America’s Founding, and the principles underlying the Founding and the Constitution. It’s beyond sad—it’s downright scary. The Republic cannot survive such ignorance.

More than anything, I would really like to see President Trump and Education Secretary DeVos, using every tool at their disposal, to rigorously encourage revolutionary curricular changes in our public schools and stop the corruption of our children’s minds with cultural marxism. I would like to see the elimination of Common Core, the replacement of one-sided indoctrination with reason and critical thinking skills, and the wholehearted, nationwide restoration and support of our rights of Free Speech at every level of education, public and private.

The president and secretary should require every institution receiving so much as a dime of federal funding to be fully committed to honoring our rights of Free Speech, welcoming and ensuring the safety of those on campuses whose views are at variance with the prevailing campus ideology, and encouraging the open exchange and debate of ideas across the ideological spectrum. If you don’t like someone on TV, you don’t smash the TV, you change the channel. Similarly, if you don’t agree with the views of a speaker on campus, you don’t silence the speaker, you just respectfully stay home.

Whatever happened to the priceless maxim of Evelyn Beatrice Hall ?

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.

It would be easier to put a camel through the eye of a needle than to find a university professor who stands shoulder to shoulder with Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

Feminist Business School Seeks to Eradicate Individualism, Merit and Competition

The concept has been tried several times throughout recorded history. Each and every time, it has been an abysmal failure. I’m talking, of course, about socialism. It has been marketed and packaged under different names. But the objective remains the same—trash and condemn liberty and individualism as a tool of “white privilege and racial oppression. Trash and comdemn free-market capitalism as an socioeconomic system designed to exploit minorities in order to maintain the status quo.

Warning:  Evergreen State is among the most radical marxist colleges and universities in the United States.  The school is truly an offspring of the Frankfurt School of Critical Thought.  They are fully dedicated to the eradication of Western Civilization, free-market capitalism, natural rights, and individualism.

https://drhurd.com/2018/02/14/feminist-business-school-seeks-eradicate-individualism-merit-competition/

What Leftists Don’t Understand About Economics–a Reflection

My comments are in response to an article which appeared yesterday entitled, What Leftists Don’t Understand about Economics, by Daniel Carter, of Investment Watch.

WHAT LEFTISTS DON’T UNDERSTAND ABOUT ECONOMICS

Where do you want me to start?  Liberals and their philosophical/political brethren understand little if anything about economics, and even less about the principles of Natural Law and Natural Rights which underscore free-market capitalism.  Volumes have been written about Natural Rights beginning with Thales of Miletus in the 6th century B.C.  He and the Seven Sages of Miletus (a rather raucous group I’m told), rather than the later Greeks Plato and Aristotle, are credited with giving philosophical birth to the Western Tradition.  There is a straight philosophical line from Thales and his Sages, to Aristotle, to Cicero, Polybius, significantly to Aquinas who bridged Christian thought with Aristotelianism, to the Enlightenment philosophes and Founding Fathers, and finally the Objectivism of Ayn Rand.  Rand’s masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged, has been rightly called Aristotle’s Eudaemonics (or flourishing) in novel form.  Having read both several times, I can confirm this comparison.  That’s pretty much what it is.

Reduced to its essence, Natural Rights includes freedom of life, liberty, and property.  In the Declaration, the pursuit of happiness was substituted for property.  The pursuit of happiness, or flourishing, is the subject of Aristotle’s Eudaemonics.  The closest English word for “eudaemonia” is “flourishing.” All agree that flourishing is pre-supposed by ordered liberty.  Man cannot rise to the occasion, or find meaning in his life, shoot for the stars, or soar on the wings of eagles without liberty, not anarchy, but ordered liberty.  The state exists for one purpose–to protect one’s life and property—not your right to hold a claim check to someone else’s money.

Also, the Ten Commandments have much to say about the primacy of Natural Rights and its place in our Judeo-Christian ethic.  Natural Rights were codified by the Ten Commandments.  Mosaic Law and Natural Law have much in common.  The Fifth Commandment (“Thou Shalt not Kill”) couldn’t make the right to life any clearer.  Likewise, The Seventh Commandment (“Thou Shalt not Steal”) could not have come down more firmly on behalf of private property rights.

Unfortunately, Natural Rights philosophy is no longer taught, or only in the darkened corner of the candlelit sanctuary of a hermit.  It is ignored or considered hate speech.  It was long ago thrown under the bus by the Progressive Movement of Marx and Woodrow Wilson and the Frankfurt School of Irrational Thought.

If you aren’t schooled or steeped in liberty or the principles of Natural Law, you can neither appreciate nor understand nor defend the offspring of Natural Rights—the free market.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/what-leftists-dont-understand-about-economics/

Why We Are a Republic, Not a Democracy

 

Few Americans are aware of the fact that we are not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. And fewer Americans could cite the differences between them. The Founders were, among other things, historians. They understood the dangers of majority rule and built numerous checks and balances into our Constitution to thwart the tyranny of the majority. The word “democracy” does not appear in any of our founding documents. To a man the founders believed this anonymous quote: “Better a king than a mob.”

Please read the article below by Professor Walter Williams.

http://dailysignal.com/2018/01/17/republic-not-democracy/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell%22&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT0dJM01EUTVPRFJtT0RJeCIsInQiOiJ3TksxSHM5NHZKOW55QlwvV0F3ekxNTU1RbWtPY1wvSWRmSklFNkJVR0NlMVJEelIzV0tjUXhIcnI5RUJXN2Z

Obamacare Mandate: Contrary to Our Natural Rights

Indeed, the repeal of the Obamacare mandate is one of the great civil rights victories of our times. Obamacare violates our inalienable natural rights/property rights in critical ways. First, it compels you to purchase an insurance product you may not need or want in terms dictated by the government. In a free society, you would be free to negotiate the terms and coverages of the plans, deductables, prices, etc. For example, an elderly couple doesn’t need pregnancy benefits, infant annihilation coverage, or coverage for any minor children.

When I was working, we had two health insurance choices—Self, or Self and Family. This is hardly just. What about Self, Self and Spouse, Self and Spouse + one child, + two children, etc? Why should a couple with one child pay the same premium as a couple with five children? Obamacare compels one to pay for the insurance of others. This is the most unjust provision of Obamacare—compelling the few to support the many. This completely flies in the face of our Natural Rights.

(This is off-topic, but the same principle—school taxes—should be levied according to how many children you have enrolled in the system. A childless couple should pay no school taxes. Nor should families who choose to home school or send their children to private or parochial schools. Only families with children in the public school system should pay school taxes.)

Health insurance should rightly be one the most individualized products or services one will ever buy. One should be able to purchase health insurance “cafeteria style.” You would pick and choose from a menu of benefits and coverages best suited to your life’s circumstances, starting with the number of people in your family requiring coverage. But the government has pretty much eliminated choice and supplanted it with one-size-fits-all loaded with mandatory benefits many of us don’t need or want.

Our Judeo-Christian faith and value system commends the disadvantaged to our care.  But it must never be compelled, it must an act of free choice.  After all, virtue pre-supposes free will.  If we are compelled to help the disadvantage, there is no virtue.  If we freely choose to help the needy, the sick, the handicapped to the extent of our ability, we are blessed.

One of government’s primary functions is the defense of our country. Yet, we do it with an all-volunteer military, and the volunteer gets to pick from among our existing armed services. Why can’t we have an all-voluntary health insurance system?  A/D

THOMAS AQUINAS ON LIBERTY

Thomas Aquinas (or St. Thomas Aquinas as we old Catholic relics prefer) is recognized by the Liberty Movement as a philosopher of reason and natural rights as much as perhaps the ultimate Christian Theologian. He is part of a straight philosopical line from Aristotle to the thinkers of the Enlightenment (including some of the Founders) and the modern Objectivist Movement. In the essay below, he clearly makes the case that true liberty (not the pseudo-liberty hedonism) is impossible without reason. Liberty can only exist in a society or civilization firmly grounded in reason and virtue. We have been thorougly duped by the modern Progressive Movement that “freedom” means doing whatever suits your fancy, as opposed to doing what you wish so long as it is within the parameters of virtue and taking actions for which you are fully prepared to pay the consequences (or reap the rewards).   I invite you to enjoy this essay by one of Western Civilization’s greatest thinkers.  A/D

 
AQUINAS ON LIBERTY

As long as we abide in partial darkness, we will continue to be conquered.

If we looked very closely at the idea of liberty, we would discover that there is a radicaldistinction between true human liberty and liberty falsely so-called. Indeed, liberty falsely so-called is that same liberty which the NWO qualifies as the “bait of an idea toattract the masses of the people to one’s party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority,” and as an idea of freedom which is really an “infection,” and as a“slackening of the reins of government.”Where does the false idea of liberty come from? What is false liberty? What is trueliberty? Knowledge of the correct answers to these questions is still lacking in the bulkof the patriot movement; and to the degree that it is lacking, so is integral unity and truepower to overcome the menace. Until the patriot movement unifies itself under truephilosophical principles, it will win only apparent victories, while the satanic NWOcontinues its long march to total global domination.True liberty is the highest of natural endowments. It is the portion only of intellectual orrational natures; and it confers on man this dignity – that he is in the hand of hiscounsel and has power over his actions. But the manner in which such dignity isexercised is of the greatest moment, inasmuch as on the use that is made of liberty thehighest good and the greatest evil alike depend. Man, indeed, is free to obey hisreason, to seek moral good, and to strive unswervingly after his last end. Yet he is freealso to turn aside to all other things; and, in pursuing the empty semblance of good, todisturb rightful order and to fall headlong into the destruction which he has voluntarilychosen. Worse still are those who promote a false and absurd notion of liberty, byperverting the idea of freedom, or extending it to things in respect of which man cannotrightly be regarded as free.The Declaration of Independence states as follows: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator withcertain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness.Sad to say, this is a very ambiguous, and therefore dangerous, proposition, as it issubject to any number of conflicting interpretations. Indeed, the proof of its weakness isthe young age of the total collapse of the American Republic. Obviously, that clausehas not been interpreted properly. If it had been, we would not have devolved intobarbarity in less than two hundred fifty years. It can be argued that the AmericanRepublic was built on Freemasonic sand; and thus if we are going to rebuild it, wemight want to re-codify our foundational principles. In order for America to throw of itsinternationalist oppressors, a proper understanding of natural human liberty, in theminds and hearts of the American people, is indispensably necessary. For we thepeople have been brought low, and have been rendered soft and vulnerable as the direct result of having imbibed and believed a false notion of liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness.As a natural endowment given to human nature by God, the omnipotent Creator of theuniverse, liberty must exist for an end or ultimate purpose. And this end must beidentical to the essential determination and composition of human nature, which isrational, i.e., intellectual and volitional. The end, or object, both of the rational will andof its liberty is that good only which is in conformity with reason.Liberty belongs only to those who have the gift of reason or intelligence. Animals donot possess liberty. Considered as to its nature, it is the faculty of choosing meansfitted for the end proposed, for he is master of his actions who can choose one thingout of many. Freedom of choice is, therefore, the essential property of the human will.But the will cannot proceed to act until it is enlightened by intellectual knowledge. Forthe proper object of the will is the good. The will cannot proceed to act until it isenlightened by the intellect. Nothing can be desired by the will unless it is judged bythe intellect to be a good. Thus in all voluntary acts, choice is subsequent to anintellectual judgment that something is good or desirable.The will is referred to as the appetitive power of the soul or the rational appetite. Likethe intellect, the will is a spiritual faculty. It is that power through which an individualseeks to execute an act or attain to an object proposed to it by the intellect. The objectof the will is always the good, and even in the election of evil, it must be proposed tothe will under the appearance of good. Anything chosen as a means is thereforeviewed under some aspect of goodness.Therefore because in all voluntary acts choice is subsequent to a judgment upon thetruth of the good presented, declaring to which good preference should be given, it isan immutably true principle that human liberty depends entirely on intellectualjudgments that conform to reason and the natural law. If a judgment which does notconform to the natural law or to reason, and which is, therefore, objectively false andimmoral, is acted upon by the will, then it is a source of grave disorder in society. Exponentially multiply the number of individual immoral acts, and you have a Republicthat collapses from moral decay in a short period of time.Hedonism, i.e., the tyranny of the passions, has no place in the well ordered man or inthe well ordered civilization. Unfortunately our elitist overlords have long been atdumbing us down to the level of beasts that cannot employ their natural rationalendowments, but only their carnal lusts. We allowed this to happen to us because wemistakenly believed that the lie they told us, namely that true liberty is the “right” to dowhatever we want, whenever we want, as long as it is not illegal or discoverable. Trueliberty is an essential property of objective truth and morality. Therefore there can be no true liberty in a civilization that enshrines moral relativity.