Do We Want Democracy?

Capitalism Magazine ^ | June 22, 2002 | Walter Williams

[RAT Patrol]

Bump!

[galt-jw]

exactly.

but, what we truly have is an oligarcy, in respect to the s.c. having the final say as to what a person can do.

think about it: these guys arent elected, they cant be fired, at least by the citizens, and they decide what the constitution "means."

so, if you want to pass a law in your state, affecting you and your local situation, you'll need approval first.

hear that, statist Christians? conservatives?

oh yeah, you're free. i saw that on tv.

[steve50]

Excellent article, thanks for posting it

[TaxPayer2000]

Republic vs democracy

[galt-jw]

ping

[B-Chan]

I don't. Nose-counting is a poor way to govern a country. As a monarchist, I believe that some people -- monarchs -- are anointed by God to rule over other people.

The Kingdom of God is a monarchy, not a republic; monarchy is the only form of government instituted by God. Democracy -- the idea that 51% of the Mob somehow magically possesses the Divine Right to rule the other 49% -- is an unchristian idea, a byproduct of the same humanist "enlightenment" that gave us the nation-state, scientism, and atheism. Nowhere does Scripture, Gospel, Epistle or Tradition tell us than man is capable of ruling his own affairs; instead, we learn that rebellion against authority is the primordial sin. Non serviam is the motto of Satan, not of the Son of God.

Obviously, I don't expect many people on FR to agree with me, and that's okay. I just wanted to let you know that there's one Freeper who doesn't worship the jealous pagan goddess Liberty. I am a loyal servant of the King of Kings – Jesus Christ - and a believer in the divinely-ordained hierarchies that He in His Wisdom established for the governance of men.

B-chan

[Pyro7480]

BUMP for later reading..

[Anthem]

Good sentiment; weak article (by William's own standards). Can't say much in 500 words.

[Alan Chapman]

RE: 7

In a free society you'd be free to join with others who share your beliefs and form a private community where one of you could rule the rest.

[Anthem]

Seems a bit odd, coming from the guy who designed the most elegant flag for a free republic. A constitutional republic need not be subject to the whims of the majority. The "rule of law" stands between the majority and the rights of the individual; in theory anyway.

Monarchy has more than a few weaknesses, succession being one of them. Bad monarchs tend to be deposed by revolutions -- a bad situation all around. Once you go to a system of succession like the Vatican employs, then you're back to a form of democracy.

Machiavelli, Montesquieu and others describe a "balance of powers" where some use of democracy is essential to provide a place for the people in the balancing equation. However, no system will stand up to an ignorant mob, bent on destroying whatever system is believed to be oppressing them. Education is as important as any other factor in governance, as no governement can impose self-governance on those unwilling or unable to accept their responsibility.

It seems to me that you're an advocate of abdicating responsibility.

[Eagle Eye]

monarchy is the only form of government instituted by God.

God did pretty good without ANY kings until Israel decided that they had to be like the other (pagan/gentile) nations and have a king.

Your theory is all wet.

[B-Chan]

In a free society you'd be free to join with others who share your beliefs and form a private community where one of you could rule the rest.

I submit that such a "free" society has never existed and cannot exist. Eventually one of these "private communities" would come to dominate the rest of the body politic. Power relationships -- the basis of all government -- are a universal fact of human society; we disagree only on what flavor of power relationship will exist.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

B-chan

[B-Chan]

Seems a bit odd, coming from the guy who designed the most elegant flag for a free republic.

Thanks for the kind compliment. I was just playing around with graphics that day...

A constitutional republic need not be subject to the whims of the majority. The "rule of law" stands between the majority and the rights of the individual; in theory anyway.

Oh, I suppose it'll work for awhile. The problem comes when The People vote themselves into power directly. The bread and circuses flow as "representatives" looking out for Number One figure out ever more devious ways to manipulate public opinion -- the process we know as "pork-barrel politics". Eventually the republic becomes a feeding trough for the various special-interest groups, which leads to either inflation or higher taxes. As the economy worsens, the bread-and-circuses-for-votes swap increases to the point where the vast majority of middle-class are disenfranchised and unable to conduct business. Tax revenues decline. Bread and circus money is diverted from other government programs. Eventually, the fabric of society becomes so disrupted that the country is invaded and conquered, or a civil war breaks out between Haves and Have-Nots. Chaos results. The Directory takes over in the name of The People and starts lopping off heads -- or burning down "compounds". As republic becomes democracy becomes oligarchy, the rule of law gets thinner and thinner until the society is in chaos. Then, with a whiff of grapeshot and a crown, Napoleon rides in to restore order and the society as a going concern.

This isn't anything we can stop. It's the nature of the beast -- the natural progression of a society where People Power is practiced: Republic to democracy to special-interest oligarchy to collapse to chaos to personal rule. I say why not just cut out the middleman?

Monarchy has more than a few weaknesses, succession being one of them. Bad monarchs tend to be deposed by revolutions -- a bad situation all around.

And bad republics don't? Germany, 1933 is an example of what happens when a democracy collapses. So is 1910 Mexico -- and there are plenty of other examples. It took a coup to rid the world of the democratically-elected Salvador Allende. Hitler was elected; it took a world war to get rid of him. The freely-voted-for communist government of Republican Spain was as vile an outfit as anything Stalin ever threw together; Franco was required to put an end to that partiucular "people's republic". And what of Castro, Mugabe, and Sukharto? Still there last time I checked...

Once you go to a system of succession like the Vatican employs, then you're back to a form of democracy.

Nope. Elective monarchy = monarchy. The Polish monarch, the Holy Roman Emperor, and the Pope were and are elected, yes -- but by their Peers, by other noblemen, not by the rabble at large.

Machiavelli, Montesquieu and others describe a "balance of powers" where some use of democracy is essential to provide a place for the people in the balancing equation. However, no system will stand up to an ignorant mob, bent on destroying whatever system is believed to be oppressing them. Education is as important as any other factor in governance, as no governement can impose self-governance on those unwilling or unable to accept their responsibility.

Well, all government is fundamentally self-government.Peoples tend to get the governments they deserve. The best guarantee of good government is good citizens. A hardworking, morally-sound culture can operate perfectly well under any sort of government; a decadent culture, however, will ruin a representative government or rebel against an authoritarian one.

As for the role of the people in government: The idea that voting = power only lasts as long as the Army is happy. In the final analysis, every government (including our own) exists at the sufferance of the gun boys. Since therefore we're going to be ruled by a warlord in any case, better a consecrated warlord answerable to the power of his peers (a king) than a warlord answerable to nobody (a dictator). A king holds his power "by the Grace of God", inherits his office through no act of his own, and is trained from the cradle to rule; a dictator -- elected or not -- is a power unto himself, obtains his power at gunpoint, and is generally a nutcase.

It seems to me that you're an advocate of abdicating responsibility.

Democracy is neither a right of Man nor a fundament of Western, Judeo-Christian culture. Nowhere does the Bible or Torah advocate the idea of representative government. The principle that just government derives its power "by the consent of the governed" is not a Christian idea, it is an Enlightenment idea. For 1200 years, the traditional form of government in the Western world was Christian monarchy; the current fad for political self-government is only about two hundred years old and has left a legacy of tears and blood in its wake.

People crave authority. It's natural and normal. I'm simply advocating a return to the traditional form of Christian government, which is based on the idea of hierarchy and duty rather than on atomistic individuality and self-service.

In any case, I'm not trying to win any converts here, so I'll stop now. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

B-chan

See also

[dheretic]

Nowhere does Scripture, Gospel, Epistle or Tradition tell us than man is capable of ruling his own affairs; instead, we learn that rebellion against authority is the primordial sin. Non serviam is the motto of Satan, not of the Son of God.

So I take it you feel that the US is an illegitimate nation? Afterall we were formed out of a rebellion against God's chosen ruler over all English speakers, King George III or so the Church would have us believe. Oh I see, you think we should surrender our sovereignty and ask the British monarchy to take us back since we were very, very naughty.

Obviously, I don't expect many people on FR to agree with me, and that's okay. I just wanted to let you know that there's one Freeper who doesn't worship the jealous pagan goddess Liberty. I am a loyal servant of the King of Kings – Jesus Christ - and a believer in the divinely-ordained hierarchies that He in His Wisdom established for the governance of men.

Good for you. People like you and your counterparts on the left make me glad the 2nd amendment exists. You are entitled to your opinion. Honestly, you are. Isn't that the great thing about a free republic? You can spout off intellectual treason to its founding values and no one is going to throw you in jail for blasphemy or heresy. Just a word of advice, there are many who do value their rights and who would be quite militant in their response to anyone of your type getting into a position of real power in the government.

[dheretic]

For 1200 years, the traditional form of government in the Western world was Christian monarchy; the current fad for political self-government is only about two hundred years old

And for his next act, B-Chan is going to try to erase the Roman and Athenian republics from history....

[dheretic]

Eventually one of these "private communities" would come to dominate the rest of the body politic

A Christian Reconstructionist, which seems to be the ideology you are advocating, would have to come to power violently and in our country the military, the intelligence agencies or the federal law enforcement agencies would kill him within 24 hours. American culture is still very anglo. We have a natural hatred for extremists and christian reconstruction is very much an extremist ideology.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

.

[respublica1776]

Read "The Trouble with Democracy" by William D. Gairdner and "The Myth of Democracy" by Tage Lindbom. The offering a devasting critique of the liberal ideology of secular univeralism or democratism, which has destroyed "community" and tried to replace it a national and even an international community.

Democracy is just two wolves and sheep voting on whats for dinner. This clamoring for more democracy and Total Democracy is little more than an effort to socialize and subgujate every facet of civil society to the state.

I offer a concise history lesson: America was founded as a republic, not a democracy.

The U.S. was conceived and framed as a constitutionally limited federal republic with limits not only on the powers of government but on that of majority rule. John Randolph said "The Great Object of the [Constitutional Convention] was to emit a cure for the follies of democracy." Succinctly stated, the fundamental purpose of government was to protect life, liberty and property. The founders were weary of unchecked democracy, majoritarian tyranny and the redistributive threat that democracy posed to property rights. In an absolute democracy, everything is potentially up for a vote, including your God-given natural rights. Under republican government, the rule of law is supreme and the rights of the individual are paramount.

Read Federalist #10 and see what Madison said about democracy being incompatible with property rights.

“The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.”
—Ecclesiastes 10:2

[johnny7]

Good point. Mark my words, the next assault by the socialists will be on the Electoral College.

To these pigs, government is a milking machine to drain capital from those who work to provide sevices to those that don't.

This is their voter base. The base is composed of;

the senile, old farts, blacks, hispanics and the people who work by allocating the funds to said voters.

The media supports them, so do the unions and the liberals. Quite a nice little operation!