Constitution Day 2005: Dissolving Democracy

I disagree - emphatically - kitanus, Valhall, justapilot.

And speaking of Thomas Jefferson:

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson, 1812

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - Thomas Jefferson, American Declaration of Independence


Democracy is the intention, or goal, and the republic is the method used to achieve that goal; democracy is the function, the republic is just the form - the people own the USA.

IMHO - Your argument justifies corporatocracy - "the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations," according to Jefferson - and works to: a) establish international corporations as the new aristocracy; b) replace democracy with corporatocracy; c) take America away from Americans; d) hijack the republic, and e) subvert said republic to be the method by which international corporations become the legal owners of the United States of America.


.

Originally posted by soficrow
I disagree - emphatically - kitanus, Valhall, justapilot.


Democracy is the intention, or goal, and the republic is the method used to achieve that goal; democracy is the function, the republic is just the form - the people own the USA.

IMHO - Your argument justifies corporatocracy - "the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations," according to Jefferson - and works to: a) establish international corporations as the new aristocracy; b) replace democracy with corporatocracy; c) take America away from Americans; d) hijack the republic, and e) subvert said republic to be the method by which international corporations become the legal owners of the United States of America.

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree. But no where in the text do I see a goal of creating a democracy. Its just one of the basis of the greatest country in the world created by some very smart men after a revolution that was unprecidented in the world at the time.

Government for the people, by the people is the watchword of our nation. I agree to that.

But I look at our US Government today and see quite a different story. The power of the Federal Governmet is way to vast and the People allow it to take even more role in their lives. In Fact I see many who Demand the Government to hold oversight in much more than what the Consitution lays out for every citizen. It is going as far from Republic or Democracy as you can get IMHO.

As far as "corporatocracy", I do not believe that the Government is being forced by the Corporations in this country as much as the many believe. But many in this nation think that Government needs to be larger to keep the corporations from making money. There is a class Envy in this nation to the "rich" or "corporations" and they want the Government to fix it. This is not the role of a government. The job of government is to run the country.. not to make everyone "equal" economically.

Corporatracy is a term that has its basis in Anti-Globalization movement. I am against Globalizaiton myself. But please do not take my comments as a support of Corporatracy.. No Where in my statements before did I say the corporations should take over. I refer you to the 10th Amendment

"U.S. Constitution: Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

There you go.. to the States or the the People. It even supports your statements.

She's not going to concede that she's absolutely wrong on this point because then she, and all those like her who choose a party line (I actually prefer to call it an obsession) over facts (no matter what party or obsession it is) will have to address what has really gone wrong in this country.

We've become too democratic on both sides of the aisle.

The problem with the Republican party today is that it looks no different than the Democratic party in pragmatics. It makes no difference of the moral issues that separate the two parties....even though that's what folks like to center on. It makes no difference whether the monies are squandered for pork entitlement programs or corporate welfare, though that's what folks want to center on. What is broken is that we have no representation for the originally intended republic of this country. The two party system has become a one party system differentiated by extremes. They are the same party with the only difference being what extreme position they want to steal our money for, or abscond with our rights for. If it's the republican party it is control and corporate welfare, if it is the democratic party it is a nanny-state and bloated entitlement agencies.

These people can't admit that because then they would have to admit that what is wrong with the U.S., what needs to be addressed is not the dissolving of a democracy - because it never was that - but the dissolving of a Constitutionalized Republic which allowed the closest form of democracy to exist when the state and local level government had the powers intended in the constitution.

They would have to admit that the original republican party (i.e. the Democrats of old) were correct. That the only proper way for this great experiment to hold true to the American citizen's rights is to make sure the powers are reserved at a level that afforded the closest chance for the individual to voice and exercise his will...the state and local level; through referendum, state and local vote.

They would have to admit that what has happened is that the Republican party of today is no different than the Democratic party of today - they just dress in different clothes, but the underwear is dirty no matter what slip you look under. They both have gravitated like moths toward a flame; toward a powerful centralized government that stomps on the individual citizen's rights and thinks they need to be nanny, crowd controller, bread-giver - only the issues under which they assume these unconstitutional powers differ from red to blue.

No - they will remain stalwart in their wrongness because it would require they learn and then admit that the original Republican party - the TRUE republican party was correct. We MUST keep the federal government at its weakest yet operational level....

and for some reason, stating the truth is less important than holding a line.

And holding that line in the face of reason; holding that line in the face of the better good for society seems to be the most important thing to do these days - no matter what color your dirty underwear are - that's the way this chick sees it.

[edit on 9-26-2005 by Valhall]

Originally posted by kitanis

...no where in the text do I see a goal of creating a democracy.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. " - from the Constitution. Describes democracy, disses monarchies, etc., where people are governed by other "authorities."


Valhall - you make a lot of unfounded assumptions about me, sling a lot of dirt, question my motives, and indulge in (sub)standard character assassinations - but you don't offer up any real argument.

The history and Constitution of the United States very clearly is about creating democracy - a revolutionary idea at the time. Whether or not the form serves its purpose is another question. The fact remains that the founding fathers chose the form of a republic to achieve the goal - and establish the modern world's first democracy: government by the people, for the people.


.

Oh, I think there is quite a difference between republic and democracy.
We have BTW islamic republic (Iran), peoples republic (China), socialist republic (ex. YU) etc...


The REPUBLIC

"Republican"
(means ""common rights")
form of government

"Government of the people
and by the people"
A republic is a self governing forum wherein a free, sovereign, moral, and enlightened people guarantee to one another and to all minorities the right and obligation to have, retain, and protect each other's God given common Rights to Life, Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness in their separate capacities as free inhabitants and or as free Sovereign people within a nation, state (nation state), and or a country, all by positively accepting the Oaths as recipients of the oaths of their servants holding public office.

The people created a republican form of government with limitations on their servants.
The people are the government,
not their servants.

"shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government"--Constitution, Art. IV Sec 4


DEMOCRACY

"Democracy"
(means "Priest rule")


A "Mob Rule" form of government giving the impression of representation and rule by it's citizens.
But, if you follow the paper trail it is:
Rule by Crown of England, Crown Templar (Temple)--a secret society,
and the Vatican (Roman Pope)
utilizing the "Mob Rule principle.
The "Crown" is the king's corporation, setup to do the king's business
and protect the king from liability.

Those in power behind the scenes dress up their candidates for office, help them get elected, and then control them while in office. Supposedly giving you a choice when both major Political parties and other parties are controlled by them. Their controlled major media is used to control and direct public opinion. So, you wonder who is really in control--It's definitely not the people.

Source

[edit on 28-9-2005 by yanchek]

There is such a heavy campaign to deny that the US is a democracy, one can only conclude that someone is indeed hell-bent on dissolving democracy.

I sling no dirt, soficrow. And that's a baseless accusation against me.

Yes, I do make assumptions.

There is something broken here in America. You have that part right. But how in the world can we intelligently discuss it, address it and work to correct it, if we don't know the fundamental structure that has broken, and the way it got broken.

That's my whole point - which for me is a tremendously important point - and the reason I feel it necessary to bring facts to this thread. The brokenness can't be ignored...and it is important enough to be addressed properly, and accurately.

Originally posted by Valhall

There is something broken here in America. You have that part right. But how in the world can we intelligently discuss it, address it and work to correct it, if we don't know the fundamental structure that has broken, and the way it got broken.

Okay - moving along.

IMO - the structure, or form, is the republic - designed to deliver democracy. It definitely is failing - BUT - democracy is the objective nonetheless. Also, most Americans assume that they live in a democracy. Yet you say it's not - why? To drive home the point that the form doesn't function?

...We may simply differ in our chosen means to spark awareness. I am not sure.

That's my whole point - which for me is a tremendously important point - and the reason I feel it necessary to bring facts to this thread. The brokenness can't be ignored...and it is important enough to be addressed properly, and accurately.

I agree. US democracy is broken. But my podcast wasn't about education - only a flag, warning, whistle. What follows is what counts. But IMO - to deny outright that America never was meant to be a democracy is shooting the nation, and fruitful discussion, right in the foot. Why fight to protect something that doesn't exist?

Maybe we could start over? Talk about what's broken, and how to fix it? FYI - If you really want to know where I'm coming from, read this:

Bird Flu. Disease? Or Evolutionary Change?

Okay, this is what I believe is wrong.

We have had two parties merge into one that leaves us no regress when the one they merged into bears warts of dysfunctionality.

We have had both parties bring moral and social issues to the federal level that should be left to the state and local level. Because the state and local level is the only place that the purest form of democracy that can be realized in this country can take place. The closest we get to pure democracy is through state-level referendums and questions.

When was the last time a federal level congressional member that is supposed to be representing you phoned you, mailed you, emailed you or knocked on your door to ask your vote on a specific issue? Never is about the most accurate statement.

Never will work for a lot of administrative issues

Originally posted by Valhall
Okay, this is what I believe is wrong.

We have had two parties merge into one that leaves us no regress when the one they merged into bears warts of dysfunctionality.

AGREED.

We have had both parties bring moral and social issues to the federal level that should be left to the state and local level.

Agreed, with qualifier that I believe social issues are about to arise that will not be handleable at the state and local level. But the feds aren't prepared or willing to take care of business either. So it doesn't much matter.

Because the state and local level is the only place that the purest form of democracy that can be realized in this country can take place. The closest we get to pure democracy is through state-level referendums and questions.

Agreed, kinda. I also think "pure" democracy is not the only kind - much can be accomplished in a multi-party system. Keeps the boyz on their toes. And a good federal system theoretically prevents the creation of local non-democratic regimes.

For instance, I know you are adamantly against federal corporatization, while I am adamantly against federal entitlement programs. I think we probably both are against both of these in the extreme. They both play their part in moderation and balance.

Agreed.

...I find myself taken with the rest of what you say too - and anyone who hasn't read the above post should go back and do so.

But - I am quite distracted with all that I see happening in the world - I know there are 4 classes of major distasters about to hit: geophysical change; climate change; water depletion; and rampant virulent epidemics, way beyond bird flu. I also know these catastrophes were predicted and proven long ago, and planned for by the powers-that-be - as business opportunites. I also know that the main play will be to dissolve democracy, and appropriate the few national assets left. The plan calls for the re-establishment of the old ruling families, with corporations fronting for them instead of monarchies. No difference, really. So mankind's few survivors will regress to the political/economic stone age, to be ruled by the ancient elite until the next population surge and predictable round of revolutions, and then the wheel will turn again.

It makes me wish I could do a back flip and say "So long and thanks for all the fish."

Yep.

And sometimes I really don't know, "Is that the chihuahua nipping at my heels, or the Doberman going for my throat?"


.

I attempted to answer this discussion with a podcast.. apparently I made a error.. did not go through

Oh yes it did - as your own thread with MY title!!! Just saw it.



I will listen after I finish SO's #6 update....

that was my second attempt at throwing up the MP file..

I'm not going into it since I believe I've hoed this row before, but I assure you, the words Republic and Democracy are not interchangeable.

As a matter of fact, "they" want you to have a Democracy, which is mob rule (delusional, actually, but the mob thinks they rule) with actual military control.

I have gotten to where I ignore the attempts to swapt the two words as most people don't comprehend the difference or what this country was supposed to be. Having said that, and other than that, you had good insights, Sofricrow.

Even those who can't even spell "constitution" should be able to see that things are very much askewed. People need toget their heads out of politics and look behind the scenes so that they can see the puppet masters at work. Only way we are going to save, not only our country and restore it to the Republican form of government (if that is even possible at this point), but also save the rest of the world from the grips of the ones who see as property, not humans.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Having said that, and other than that, you had good insights, Sofricrow.

Thanks TC - I appreciate that.

Again, I do consider the "a republic is not a democracy" argument to be spurious, and contradictory to all manner of printed material published in the last 200-odd years - not least, the American Constitution, which clearly states:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The second part of the "republic is not democracy" argument says that democracy is mob rule - and thus stipulates that democracy is undesirable. So the argument covers all the angles, saying "The USA is not a democracy, never was a democracy, and besides, democracy sucks, so who cares if it disappears."

Hmmm.

IMO - the "republic is not democracy" argument is just a marketing package, developed relatively recently to a) deny that the USA is a democracy; and claim, b) Americans therefore will have lost nothing when their democracy is finally and fully dismantled. ...It's disinformation, and finally, a fatal distraction - designed to misdirect serious thinkers.


...but, for the sake of argument - I will give you your position. As I understand it: a) democracy must be "pure" to qualify as democracy, and b) pure democracy is "mob rule," and therefore totally undesirable. So it follows that you have in mind a "ruling class" to be responsible for governing the "mob." Can you please expand, and explain:

1. What qualities, exactly, are you looking for in your ruling class?

2. Who finally will determine the qualities, and individuals, who make up the ruling class?

3. How might this new ruling class be put into power?

4. Given that I, for example, do not possess the requisite qualities to become a member of the new ruling class - ie., intelligence, education, social standing, assets, and/or whatever - why should I accept governance by this completely-revised, all-new ruling class?

5. What happens if I don't accept governance by the new ruling class? Will I be forced? How?



...Also, please recognize that given current US laws, dissolving democracy and/or the federal government at this juncture simply ensures that "the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations" will be firmly and irrevocably established, as Jefferson warned in 1812.

Even those who can't even spell "constitution" should be able to see that things are very much askewed. People need toget their heads out of politics and look behind the scenes so that they can see the puppet masters at work. Only way we are going to save, not only our country and restore it to the Republican form of government (if that is even possible at this point), but also save the rest of the world from the grips of the ones who see as property, not humans.

I'm not even worried about qualifying the parameters in order to determine a functional Democracy and a non-functional one. One is nothing more than the precursor to the other, as we've seen in this country the last several decades. As a matter of fact, it isn't simply thins country, but a good majority of the world, now, since that war to "make the world safe for Democracy!"

I posted this in ATSNN, as you now and to which you responded, but didn't respond, if you know what I mean:

"This is a Democracy, and it is not supposed to be.
With a Democracy, for example, you'll have troops in the streets disguised as "law enforcement" officers. They'll be easy to identify because no matter what level of government they serve, (city state of feds), you'll find a national flag on their upper sleeve. The states in a Republic would enjoy the rights that today's states do not, also. Why do the 9th and 10th Amendments no longer apply to the country? Because the Republic is dead. Been that way for what, close to 140 years, now?

Democracy is the tool used to gain control over Republics and kingdoms alike. Democracy, however, is not the final step. I believe the final step will look a bit like what China has today. I'm sure it'll be a bit different because, remember; thesis, antithesis- synthesis.
I wouldn't be surprised if the future for the whole world is a bit harsher than China's, as a matter of fact, if "they" get their way."

That is about as deep as I'm going to get with this right now. I have towrite a report on the Trilateral Commission tonight when I get home and submit it forthe newsletter or WilliamOneSac is going to trounce me!

Regardless, leavingthe Republic, allowing them to make us a Democracy, is what has led the nation down a bad road. A Republic is hard enough to keep, and we obviously didn't, but a Democracy is clearly the wrong road, once you realize what it is and where it leads. Democracy is like Socialism in that it might seem like a good concept when one reads about it, but by the time you thow in the human factor and the Satanic facor as well, it gets pretty mucked up.
Communism/Socialism is when the governbment is in control of the people, and the government is clearly ruled by "them".
A Democracy is when the government rules, but allows the people to think they are in control. "They" rule from behind the scenes.
A Constitutional Republic, as what we used to have, is where the people were free and ruled their lives with very little government interference, and the people were allowed to define the rules through their own states, ratehr than a centralized government defining every darned thing for them.

By the way, Sofricrow, you quoted the Declaration of Independence and called it thed Constitution. This is more than a simple error; this is a very good illustration of the problem, when coupled with the fact that the quote by Thomas Jefferson makes it clear why we should have stayed on the Constitutional Republic course and never have allowed those with money and power to divert us upon the course of the corrupted and corruptable course of Democracy.

I offer these qoutes just for sake of discussion.. BTW Thomas Jefferson was not present when the Consitution was written. He was minister to France whe this consitutional convention took place.

Alexander Hamilton (first Secretary of the Treasury) was aware of this tendency of a democratic form of government to be torn apart by itself, and he has been quoted as writing:

"We are now forming a republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon turn into a monarchy (or some other form of dictatorship)."

or

“The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.” - John Quincy Adams

or

“In democracy … there are commonly tumults and disorders … Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.” - Noah Webster


[edit on 2-10-2005 by kitanis]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
By the way, Sofricrow, you quoted the Declaration of Independence and called it thed Constitution.

Mea culpa. Brain burp. Bad cold/flu.

...My real concern is that personal freedoms in the USA are being eroded rapidly, and irrevocably. I'm saying this erosion results from a planned process of dissolving democracy. The main argument I hear is that the US is not a democracy, never was one, and if it was, democracy doesn't work anywhay.

Mea culpa. Brain burp. Bad cold/flu.

...My real concern is that personal freedoms in the USA are being eroded rapidly, and irrevocably. I'm saying this erosion results from a planned process of dissolving democracy. The main argument I hear is that the US is not a democracy, never was one, and if it was, democracy doesn't work anywhay.

Sorry to hear about the cold!

We agree on something alright.. No matter what form of government that we have in the US.. it is not what either side of the arguement acknowledges.

The problem is that the polticians have slowly erroded the government to fit what ever goal they have determined.

This has been happening for decades.. and the PEOPLE have allowed it to happen. In fact the People have not put to task the politcians because of their own apathy to the proccess.