Taberakistan
09-04-2005, 22:07
"'I loathe Democracy'
There. I've said it. The hard part is out of the way. The first hump is always the hardest... true literally, as well as figuratively.
I guess I should go into why I have this awfully bitter distate towards a concept that supposedly is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Well, that is one reason. Democracy breeds wagon-jumpers: those that jump on the newest bandwagon when enticed with whatever it is they so desire, and according to them, so richly deserve.
Sure, America is the greatest place to live. But we are by no means the most free to live our daily lives. Every country has its pros and cons. In Amsterdam you can openly smoke pot in cafes, but in Switzerland they regulate how much money you can withdraw from your bank account at any one time, and even tell you if what you want to withdraw is reasonable based on why you are withdrawing it.
In America we have search and seizure laws that state that even if you prove you were wrongfully targeted, the agency that targeted you is still entitled to upwards of 20% of the assets they wrongfully seized. Such laws show that our government has no real desire to actually win the war on ANYTHING. They make too much money at it. And WE get charged with racketeering?
Where Democracy creeps its ugly ass head in in this topic is that the only way this ever happened was because you and your neighbors fell asleep at the wheel and at one point or another figured it would be easier to let the politicians decide what was best for you than for you to have to get off your lazy fucking ass and make sure they only did what they were supposed to do, and not what they wanted to do.
See, in a democracy, it is the smallest group, usually with the most money and the most charisma, that lead the whole of the system. All they need to do is light the fire in the places where it will catch the fastest and before you know it, this group of people have lined up in front of them, creating a voice louder than the few at the top could ever achieve. We call this the "mob mentality." Yell fire in a crowded theater to see it in all its ignorant glory.
And that is what a democracy is: a mob.
Benjamin Franklin said: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
This spoke not only of the ills of democracy, but also of what would be needed to ensure it didn't happen that way. Some of the founding fathers knew that government was a needed evil. But an evil that surely had to be watched and held in check by the people, not the other way around. To see our society today, it is painfully clear that almost every nasty thing that could come of their new government, did.
He also said: They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.
That should be a smart slap across our collective face. Because that is exactly was has happened under our "democracy" and is why democracy is something that should be avoided at all costs because it cares not for what you have, want, or need. Democracy only cares about what the largest number of people want. Notice I didn't say have, or need. Democracy has no place for what you have or what you need. Because what you have, you only have because there haven't been enough people laying claim to it. It doesn't care about what you need because it is a heat-of-the-moment animal. And when a group is in the heat of the moment, or panic, needs go right out the window.
A Republican form of government, not the political party but the concept of government, was the best choice they saw as a way to protect the rights of its citizens. Now, we all know that they didn't think everyone was really created equal. That only meant free, white, male, landowners, for the most part. But the idea is what counts these days.
The states were required to be Repulican in form, to ensure that they didn't become monarchies. But what this left open was the top level of government. The Federal government was only supposed to do as stated in the Constitution, but was also given claim over that which the states did not choose to regulate. Unfortunately, unscrupulous men soon realised that there was this loophole and seized upon it and the federal government has expanded on it ever since. While each new generation just takes our system at face value, and don't see it for what it is: the world's most powerful coup, and slowest takeover from the people that put their trust in the ability of their fellow man to be responsible enough to stand up for themselves.
Quote:
In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.
*emphasis mine.
Sound familiar?
Quote:
Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
In a Republic, you own the government. In a Democracy, the government owns you. How has this happened? Well, its blackmail. Democracy gives that which the largest group of people want. There's the bribe. The blackmail is simple and right out in the open. How quick does the public at large come out against politicians for wanting to make cuts to entitlement programs? There it is: re-elect those that gave you that which you don't deserve, or the boogeyman on the other side of the aisle will take it right out of your mouth; pocket; purse.
I have also read that US citizenship didn't exits until 1868 and that the idea of a citizen is wholly separate from the "people." This would go into that territory of those in power not believing that all were created equal.
This was the Army's official take on the two forms of government, in its training manuals, until removed in the late 30s
Quote:
Prepared under the direction of the Chief of Staff.
CITIZENSHIP
This manual supersedes Manual of Citizenship Training The use of the publication "The Constitution of the United States," by Harry Atwood, is by permission and courtesy of the author.
CITIZENSHIP Democracy:
A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting 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 is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy
CITIZENSHIP Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of
(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
Atwood. Superior to all others.--Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered. Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success. Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy * * * and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."
"By order of the Secretary of War: C.P. Summerall, Major General, Chief of Staff. Official: Lutz Wahl, Major General, The Adjutant General.
So I think I've ranted long enough. I've given quite a bit to chew on and discuss. Disagree with me if you feel so inclined. I don't care either way.
We may have a great nation, but a nation is made up of its people, not its government. What we need now is a good government. One that doesn't look down on those that created it. But its gone far passed any way of being reeled back in. There is no outcome but destruction.
I will leave you with one long, good read, on the differences of the two systems of government, by James Madison, in The Federalist #10
Quote:
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an excellent article written by Frater F L from the Satanism101.com forums, and I thought it would be a good idea to post it here to discuss.
My biggest problem with Libertarianism, which claims to advocate "liberty", apart from the fact that it is divided, is that is gives Americans too much credit. America is a mob. Fix the current system, and the mob will just break it again within a few generations. The current constitution of the United States of America, while being among the best foundations for a government, lacks precision. It allows pressure groups to interpret and bend the Bill of Rights to fit its own ends.
The ideal government would be a small, ruling police state that was based upon a precise constitution that protected the individual's rights. A constitution based upon solid philosophy. The law system would be based upon Lex Talionis, responsibility to the responsible, the punishment fitting the crime. The economic system, of course, would be capitalism.
There. I've said it. The hard part is out of the way. The first hump is always the hardest... true literally, as well as figuratively.
I guess I should go into why I have this awfully bitter distate towards a concept that supposedly is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Well, that is one reason. Democracy breeds wagon-jumpers: those that jump on the newest bandwagon when enticed with whatever it is they so desire, and according to them, so richly deserve.
Sure, America is the greatest place to live. But we are by no means the most free to live our daily lives. Every country has its pros and cons. In Amsterdam you can openly smoke pot in cafes, but in Switzerland they regulate how much money you can withdraw from your bank account at any one time, and even tell you if what you want to withdraw is reasonable based on why you are withdrawing it.
In America we have search and seizure laws that state that even if you prove you were wrongfully targeted, the agency that targeted you is still entitled to upwards of 20% of the assets they wrongfully seized. Such laws show that our government has no real desire to actually win the war on ANYTHING. They make too much money at it. And WE get charged with racketeering?
Where Democracy creeps its ugly ass head in in this topic is that the only way this ever happened was because you and your neighbors fell asleep at the wheel and at one point or another figured it would be easier to let the politicians decide what was best for you than for you to have to get off your lazy fucking ass and make sure they only did what they were supposed to do, and not what they wanted to do.
See, in a democracy, it is the smallest group, usually with the most money and the most charisma, that lead the whole of the system. All they need to do is light the fire in the places where it will catch the fastest and before you know it, this group of people have lined up in front of them, creating a voice louder than the few at the top could ever achieve. We call this the "mob mentality." Yell fire in a crowded theater to see it in all its ignorant glory.
And that is what a democracy is: a mob.
Benjamin Franklin said: Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
This spoke not only of the ills of democracy, but also of what would be needed to ensure it didn't happen that way. Some of the founding fathers knew that government was a needed evil. But an evil that surely had to be watched and held in check by the people, not the other way around. To see our society today, it is painfully clear that almost every nasty thing that could come of their new government, did.
He also said: They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.
That should be a smart slap across our collective face. Because that is exactly was has happened under our "democracy" and is why democracy is something that should be avoided at all costs because it cares not for what you have, want, or need. Democracy only cares about what the largest number of people want. Notice I didn't say have, or need. Democracy has no place for what you have or what you need. Because what you have, you only have because there haven't been enough people laying claim to it. It doesn't care about what you need because it is a heat-of-the-moment animal. And when a group is in the heat of the moment, or panic, needs go right out the window.
A Republican form of government, not the political party but the concept of government, was the best choice they saw as a way to protect the rights of its citizens. Now, we all know that they didn't think everyone was really created equal. That only meant free, white, male, landowners, for the most part. But the idea is what counts these days.
The states were required to be Repulican in form, to ensure that they didn't become monarchies. But what this left open was the top level of government. The Federal government was only supposed to do as stated in the Constitution, but was also given claim over that which the states did not choose to regulate. Unfortunately, unscrupulous men soon realised that there was this loophole and seized upon it and the federal government has expanded on it ever since. While each new generation just takes our system at face value, and don't see it for what it is: the world's most powerful coup, and slowest takeover from the people that put their trust in the ability of their fellow man to be responsible enough to stand up for themselves.
Quote:
In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.
*emphasis mine.
Sound familiar?
Quote:
Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
In a Republic, you own the government. In a Democracy, the government owns you. How has this happened? Well, its blackmail. Democracy gives that which the largest group of people want. There's the bribe. The blackmail is simple and right out in the open. How quick does the public at large come out against politicians for wanting to make cuts to entitlement programs? There it is: re-elect those that gave you that which you don't deserve, or the boogeyman on the other side of the aisle will take it right out of your mouth; pocket; purse.
I have also read that US citizenship didn't exits until 1868 and that the idea of a citizen is wholly separate from the "people." This would go into that territory of those in power not believing that all were created equal.
This was the Army's official take on the two forms of government, in its training manuals, until removed in the late 30s
Quote:
Prepared under the direction of the Chief of Staff.
CITIZENSHIP
This manual supersedes Manual of Citizenship Training The use of the publication "The Constitution of the United States," by Harry Atwood, is by permission and courtesy of the author.
CITIZENSHIP Democracy:
A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting 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 is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy
CITIZENSHIP Republic:
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of
(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
Atwood. Superior to all others.--Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered. Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success. Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy * * * and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."
"By order of the Secretary of War: C.P. Summerall, Major General, Chief of Staff. Official: Lutz Wahl, Major General, The Adjutant General.
So I think I've ranted long enough. I've given quite a bit to chew on and discuss. Disagree with me if you feel so inclined. I don't care either way.
We may have a great nation, but a nation is made up of its people, not its government. What we need now is a good government. One that doesn't look down on those that created it. But its gone far passed any way of being reeled back in. There is no outcome but destruction.
I will leave you with one long, good read, on the differences of the two systems of government, by James Madison, in The Federalist #10
Quote:
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an excellent article written by Frater F L from the Satanism101.com forums, and I thought it would be a good idea to post it here to discuss.
My biggest problem with Libertarianism, which claims to advocate "liberty", apart from the fact that it is divided, is that is gives Americans too much credit. America is a mob. Fix the current system, and the mob will just break it again within a few generations. The current constitution of the United States of America, while being among the best foundations for a government, lacks precision. It allows pressure groups to interpret and bend the Bill of Rights to fit its own ends.
The ideal government would be a small, ruling police state that was based upon a precise constitution that protected the individual's rights. A constitution based upon solid philosophy. The law system would be based upon Lex Talionis, responsibility to the responsible, the punishment fitting the crime. The economic system, of course, would be capitalism.