Statement by Jim Robinson Regarding the State of our Free Republic

October 20, 2003 | Jim Robinson

[Chad Fairbanks]

Sure, it may fall under both definitions. The difference is, a pure democracy wouldn't have the checks and balances system built-in as we do - I'd be willing to agree that we have a limited democracy, but that's about as far as I will go.

As for France, they can call themselves a republic all they want. I mean, heck even Communist China bills itself as a republic. Just because they call it that, doesn't necessarily make it so ;0)

[pollywog]

Thank you.

[Chad Fairbanks]

And the difference between an Ochlocracy, and Democracy is....?

[betty boop]

9/11 was Wake-Up Call #1.

I absolutely agree, Phaedrus. And did we ever need a wake-up call! Life in America was getting positively unreal; "progressive" (read: totalitarian socialist)rhetoric -- "spin" -- trumped reality. Inevitably, a good dose of reality was needed; and we got one.

I just hope it didn't come too late to do us any good.

JimRob is absolutely right: The Left does want to destroy the Constitution. It is a crystalization of a theory of man and of values that the Left despises. Unfortunately, I think that Plato was right: even the "best constitution" cannot suffice to maintain a decent, just social order for a people who hold virtue in contempt. The Framers knew this all too well -- hence Franklin's comment to the lady who inquired what sort of government the Framers had wrought in Philadelpia: "A republic, my dear -- if you can keep it."

The political order the Framers bequeathed to us is premised on the widespread, general exercise of civic virtue. Moral relativism is the antithetical idea of both personal and civic virtue. Thanks for the ping, Phaedrus -- and thank you JimRob for your outstanding post.

[Protagoras]

And the difference between an Ochlocracy, and Democracy is....?

Zip.

[Modernman]

The difference is, a pure democracy wouldn't have the checks and balances system built-in as we do - I'd be willing to agree that we have a limited democracy, but that's about as far as I will go.

I think a lot of FReepers use "democracy" as shorthand for "tyranny of the majority." The Athenians had a system close to a true democracy, though they also elected individuals to execute the decisions of the electorate. Even the New England towns that have direct voting on every issue also elect executives to make those decisions concrete. Other than a lynch mob, I can't really think of any examples of mob rule democracy.

[js1138]

California definitely has direct democracy. Florida also. In recent elections, Floridians voted to build a high speed railway to nowhere, insured that pregnant pigs have roomy pens, and limited public school class size.

They are also learning the cost of these follies. The class size limit was accomplished on the same budget by reducing or eliminating frills like music, art and sports. Florida also is required to balance its budget every year. People learn that increased spending in one area will hurt another.

[Modernman]

And the difference between an Ochlocracy, and Democracy is....?

From Dictionary.com:

Ochlocracy:Government by the masses; mob rule

So, a system could be a democracy, an ochlocracy and a republic, all at the same time. However, our system seems to meet the definition of both a republic and a democracy.

[wayoverontheright]

I must be a nutcase too, Jim. The following is a post I made to another thread, the quote which follows is from Rich Lowry, followed by my post.

And what I say in the book is, you need two things to succeed as president - principles and character, and Clinton didn't have either.-Rich Lowry

Bill Clinton DID have principles, it's just that he couldn't reveal them.

I'm the same age as Clinton, and I too was a lefty who used to sit around with others in "the movement", as we called ourselves, and dream and PLOT for the day when we could get one of our own into the White House. We knew that we would have to find a special person, a chameleon, who could, while cloaking our real agenda of neutering the "military industrial complex" and achieving our utopian socialist vision, tell the people pretty much what they wanted to hear while his ACTIONS would serve our cause.

If you pay attention to Clinton's ACTIONS while in office, you will realize that he never betrayed that vision spawned decades ago.

To assess what was Bill Clinton in the light of his character alone falls well short of what we need to understand about the fact that he had principles, he had an agenda, he remained true to the original socialist vision, especially in light of the fact that we face the possible return of Bill Clinton to the White House in the spectre of Hillary's ascension to the Presidency. It's the only reason they're still married.

[wimpycat]

Since when did following your conscience depend on the opinions of others? You shouldn't have to justify your actions to the critics who wish you did things their way any more than the U.S. should have to justify our actions to the Europeans, who, if they had their way, would turn us into Europe, Junior (God forbid!). Who gives a flip if "the world hates us"? Considering the political bent and philosophies of "the world", I'd be very afraid if we had their approval.

Considering your class of critic, I'd say you were doing pretty well, too. You can't throw out the Democrats and install Conservatives in one fell swoop. You have to chip away at 'em little by little. That's how the left achieved victories in religion, abortion, tobacco and the homosexual agenda. It took them 30 or 40 years, not one or two election cycles. They didn't wait for the 'perfect' candidate who had all the 'correct' leftist views. They settled for a little here and a little there until they had built up enough to start making some really bold moves. It's a proven successful tactic, and if they can do it, we can certainly do it, because our ideas are more in keeping with the average citizen, even now.

[Sabertooth]

What do you mean by that? Provide an example. :0)

In a republic, we endeavor to avoid tyrannies of majorities. Yet, while the freedom of association allows folks to gather in groups whose members may not reflect republicanism, subjecting themselves to the whims and rants of majorities if they choose to do so, is there a conflict if members of a group whose purpose is republicanism don't cultivate republican behavior personally?

You said...

"I'll stick with prefering a constitutional republic, thanks. That way my rights as an individual won't be at the mercy of the 'normal people.'"

Insert the FR "clique du jour."

How can republicanism be promoted where it isn't modeled?

[Protagoras]

Other than a lynch mob, I can't really think of any examples of mob rule democracy.

Lots of ways to accomplish mob rule. In this country we use the republican form to accomplish it.

The results are the same. The only way to have the desired result is to establish inviolable rights of the individual. The framers tried. The undoing started almost immediately.

That's where we are today, ochlocracy.

[Mustang]

JimRob, Dittos and Bravo Zulu!

The Liberal Socialist DemocRAT Party, aka the LSD Party, are an anathema.

[wimpycat]

I hardly think comparing FR to the U.S. government would be an accurate analogy. FR is a benevolent dictatorship. The leadership is unelected, the leadership owns all the property. In exchange, we get to do pretty much what we want, and if the decisions made are somewhat arbitrary, well, then those are the breaks. It's not like Cuba, where we can't leave if we want...we're even allowed to go back and forth between FR and certain "unfriendly" countries, with no repercussions. And some of us take full advantage of it. Not me, though.

[Chad Fairbanks]

However, our system seems to meet the definition of both a republic and a democracy.

Officially, it's a Republic - but unofficially, it's becoming a democracy - At least, that is my personal opinion on the matter. Doens't mean I'm right. Just opinionated ;0)

[Chad Fairbanks]

You raise a good point. However, FR isn't a government, either ;0)

[Chad Fairbanks]

That's what I thought ;0)

[Modernman]

FR is a benevolent dictatorship

Maybe FR is a "stakeholder democracy" or a "corporate republic." Though members don't get a vote, we can vote with our (electronic) feet and/or with our donations. Jim has a tough job of balancing his decisions with what will make the average FReeper happy. Without its members, FR is just a web page.

That being said, I'd have to say I'm pretty happy with the management around here. The only thing I'd like to see (and maybe this already exists) is an explanation of where donations go.

[Chad Fairbanks]

That's where we are today, ochlocracy.

And if not, we are getting darn close...

[Sabertooth]

I hardly think comparing FR to the U.S. government would be an accurate analogy.

Which is why I said "the freedom of association allows folks to gather in groups whose members may not reflect republicanism."

FR is a benevolent dictatorship. The leadership is unelected, the leadership owns all the property.

Not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about personal conduct.

"...is there a conflict if members of a group whose purpose is republicanism don't cultivate republican behavior personally?"