Monday, 20 June 2011

Pure Democracy is Evil...

Pure Democracy is Evil...


Five people are sitting in a room. Three are men. One of them proposes
a new law making it legal to for a man to rape a woman (under certain
circumstances of course). The three men vote yea. What happens next
is "democracy" in action.


Pure "democracy" is rule by majority. In effect, it is
mob rule.


How many times do you hear elected officials referring to "our
democratic form of government" or accusing someone of acting
in a way that is "not democratic". These seemingly innocuous
statements are actually quite troubling if you know what "democracy"
really is. To put it simply, "democracy" is mob rule.
When a lynching occurs, the democratic majority is just exercising
its will upon the democratic minority. The trick to surviving in
a "democracy" is to always agree with the majority.

I wonder whether most Americans are fully aware of the form of government
our Constitution guarantees. Unfortunately, I know too many Americans
do not understand the difference between a "republican form
of government" and a "democracy". This makes me very
worried for the future of my Country. Let me put it this way: if
WE THE PEOPLE do not understand what the Constitution guarantees,
what is the guarantee worth?

Current definitions of "democracy" in dictionaries and
school textbooks do not distinguish it from a "republican form
of government". While a republic can be correctly defined as
a "representative democracy", plain old "democracy"
is NOT just another word for republic. Most current dictionaries
give the first definition of "Democracy" as a "government
exercised either directly by the people or through elected representatives."
The "rule by the majority" definition usually shows up
as the forth or fifth definition, if it's listed at all.

I wonder why these contradicting definitions have become accepted.
Could it be due to confusion over what "democracy" truly
is? Why have we strayed so far from an understanding that all governments
fall into one of three different forms: autocratic, republic, and
democratic. The founding fathers knew the difference well. They
viewed "democracy" as an extreme form of government that
had been tried (e.g. Greece, France, etc.) but had always failed.
The republic they envisioned and created was intended to be a government
that functioned at the "Golden Mean" between rule by a
tyrant and rule by the mob. Somehow we have lost our understanding
of this fundamental truth. Somehow we forgot what all of human history
shows to be the result when either extreme is implemented.

Certainly there is no confusion about autocracy or monarchy or
anarchy yet "democracy", is the word most applied to our
republican system of government. I would like to change this. I
would like to reapply the word that best describes our system of
government. I want to hear elected officials referring to "our
republican form of government". I want Citizens to understand
the difference between "our republican form of government"
and a "democracy".

You have to go back a ways but the distinction was clearly made
even as late as 1929. The Army Training Manual of 1929 (PM 2000-25)
contains the following definitions under the title of Citizenship:

Democracy: A government of the masses, authority derived through
mass meetings or any other form of direct expression; results in
mobocracy; attitude toward property is communistic negating property
rights; attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall
regulate whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion,
prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences;
its result is dem-o-gogism, license, agitation, discontent and anarchy.

Republic: Authority is derived through the election by the people
of public officials best suited to represent them. Attitude toward
property is respect for laws and individual rights and a sensible
economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of
justice in accord with fixed principles that establish evidence
with a strict regard for consequences. A greater number of citizens
and extent of territory may be brought within its compass, it avoids
the dangerous extremes of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in
statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice contentment and progress,
is a standard for government around the world.

I end this very serious topic with a few quotes that strike
me as funny yet get at the truth of what "democracy" really

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know
what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

- H. L. Mencken

"Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many
for appointment by the corrupt few."
- George Bernard

"The majority is never right. Never, I tell you! That's
one of these lies in society that no free and intelligent man can
ever help rebelling against. Who are the people that make up the
biggest proportion of the population --- the intelligent ones or
the fools? I think we can agree it's the fools, no matter where
you go in this world, it's the fools that form the overwhelming
- Henrik Ibsen


No comments:

Post a Comment