Ron Paul: Democracy is not Freedom

[FrankRep]

bump

[Dr.3D]

Thanks for posting the picture of that shirt. I bought one and it's strange how many people believe I hate the United States when they read it. I try to tell them I just don't believe democracy is the right way to go and they mock me, saying I am being unpatriotic.

[Travlyr]

So was the USA ever a real constitutional republic or was it some variation of one?

The republic worked at a livable level for many people for 50 years, or so. At the same time, it was a time of racial, ethnic, and class hatred, so many people were not allowed to participate.

The real loss of the republic came at the time of the Civil War. Currency was debased and Wall Street took over.

[FrankRep]

Thanks for posting the picture of that shirt. I bought one and it's strange how many people believe I hate the United States when they read it. I try to tell them I just don't believe democracy is the right way to go and they mock me, saying I am being unpatriotic.

Ron Paul is anti-Democracy as well. :-)

[onlyrp]

Ron Paul is anti-Democracy as well. :-)

but he's not anti-voting

[bolil]

someone said, I forget who, "Democracies fail when they grant themselves endless access to the public treasury." I think it was Solon but I am not sure.

[heavenlyboy34]

The republic worked at a livable level for many people for 50 years, or so. At the same time, it was a time of racial, ethnic, and class hatred, so many people were not allowed to participate.

The real loss of the republic came at the time of the Civil War. Currency was debased and Wall Street took over.

That was the complete descent into fascist Imperialism. I would argue that the end of the first republic came with the Alien and Sedition Acts. Depends on how technical you want to get. But, yeah, the Civil War was the deathblow to any semblance of freedom that was left at the time.

[bolil]

But but but but I thought the Civil War was fought to free the slaves...

[heavenlyboy34]

But but but but I thought the Civil War was fought to free the slaves...

lolz

[FrankRep]

But but but but I thought the Civil War was fought to free the slaves...

Sucker!!

[Mach]

"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only last until the citizens discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that the Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, to be followed by a dictatorship, and then a monarchy."

1. A Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.
2. A Republic: The flock gets to vote for which wolves vote on dinner.
3. A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden, and the sheep are armed.
4. Federal Government: The means by which the sheep will be fooled into voting for a Democracy.
5. Freedom: Two very hungry wolves looking for dinner and finding a very well-informed and well-armed sheep.

[FrankRep]

bump

[Zerubbabel]

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders' belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

I believe that we must have a written rule of Law that restrains all people, including government. There has to be rules to the game that everybody follows. But in some way those rules must be consented to by a strong majority of people i.e. democratically derived, and can not be locked in time, as that would create a tyranny of the dead over the living. And that generally describes our Constitution ratified through direct vote and with it's amendment mechanism.


But - the canard, the quacking duck of republic not democracy is disingenuous. Ben's famous quote is always misquoted. The verbatim quote as handed down to us through Dr. James McHenry: "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” - “A Republic, if you can keep it.” The two mutually exclusive options were a Republic or a Monarchy, not a Republic or a Democracy. Which makes perfect sense in the context of the day, i.e. the monarchical domination of Europe, and until very recently in Ben's time, the Colonies. If the Founders intended that a Republic would protect the rights of individual citizens, then they failed because they crafted the Constitution without such protections, the BOR followed years later, and they are crafted in such a way that they can be abolished through amendment. In the context of the historical Founders when they used the word 'Republic' they imagined the model of the classical Roman Republic and not the Roman Empire (emperor-monarchy). This is really a picayune point and it should maybe go without refutation, but the whole bit about misusing words asks for one to be called-out on the misuse of words.




>>> freedom is the absence of government coercion <<<


This betrays a certain bias. The Tea Party is a reaction against Big-Government coercion. The Occupy Wall Street is a reaction against Big-Business coercion. Why would not freedom be the absence of any kind of coercion? Why just government coercion and the supposed threat of democratic coercion? Why exclude the coercion of Big-Business?

[BSWPaulsen]

This betrays a certain bias. The Tea Party is a reaction against Big-Government coercion. The Occupy Wall Street is a reaction against Big-Business coercion. Why would not freedom be the absence of any kind of coercion? Why just government coercion and the supposed threat of democratic coercion? Why exclude the coercion of Big-Business?

Big-business coercion is impossible without a monopoly on force, namely the State, and that aside, a business would never pretend to be the social contract and all of the baggage that phrase accompanies. Democratic means couch their activities, nefarious or good, under the social contract just as the State does.

The problem with Occupy Wall Street is that most of them wanted to influence/command the monopoly on force to do their bidding, instead of dismantling it. Such people are simply tyrants that currently have no power. They are not even remotely interested in freedom.

The same, by the way, is true of Tea Party neo-cons. They protest the State doing certain things, and only want it to do things their way. Tyrants just the same.

People should be opposed to an absolute monopoly on force, in principle. Actual application is a trickier matter due to mankind's insatiable quest for power, but even should one start to play the "necessary evil" game, one should never allow for a State disconnected from the people via unnecessary centralization. The US Constitution utterly failed to protect against centralization and all of the unnecessary evils it entails, and became downright farcical when it ceased focusing on the protection of (negative) rights, enforcements of contracts, law (involving only victims and intent!), and national defense.

[Zerubbabel]

Big-business coercion is impossible without a monopoly on force, namely the State

I think such a statement could use a definition of "coercion." Before the rise of city-states was there no coercion in the relations of men? If states were forever banished there would be no more coercion? Coercion is always possible. To think otherwise is to be a poor student of human relations.

They (OWS) are not even remotely interested in freedom.

This is that bias I mentioned. OWS simply sees the threat to freedom coming from another direction, another coercive power. Crony-capitalism is not isolated incidences, it is our norm. In reality the TP and OWS are reacting against the same entity. At the turn of the last century GK Chesterton recognized this reality. He called them Hudge and Gudge. Some will hate Hudge while they love Gudge while the others will hate Gudge while they love Hudge. One side wants to rid us of Hudge and keep Gudg, while the other wants to rid us of Gudge and keep Hudge. While all this political discourse is happening, Hudge and Gudge are fornicating in a plush mansion up on the hill, paid for by us all. IMHO

[sailingaway]

I believe that we must have a written rule of Law that restrains all people, including government. There has to be rules to the game that everybody follows. But in some way those rules must be consented to by a strong majority of people i.e. democratically derived, and can not be locked in time, as that would create a tyranny of the dead over the living. And that generally describes our Constitution ratified through direct vote and with it's amendment mechanism.


But - the canard, the quacking duck of republic not democracy is disingenuous. Ben's famous quote is always misquoted. The verbatim quote as handed down to us through Dr. James McHenry: "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” - “A Republic, if you can keep it.” The two mutually exclusive options were a Republic or a Monarchy, not a Republic or a Democracy. Which makes perfect sense in the context of the day, i.e. the monarchical domination of Europe, and until very recently in Ben's time, the Colonies. If the Founders intended that a Republic would protect the rights of individual citizens, then they failed because they crafted the Constitution without such protections, the BOR followed years later, and they are crafted in such a way that they can be abolished through amendment. In the context of the historical Founders when they used the word 'Republic' they imagined the model of the classical Roman Republic and not the Roman Empire (emperor-monarchy). This is really a picayune point and it should maybe go without refutation, but the whole bit about misusing words asks for one to be called-out on the misuse of words.




>>> freedom is the absence of government coercion <<<


This betrays a certain bias. The Tea Party is a reaction against Big-Government coercion. The Occupy Wall Street is a reaction against Big-Business coercion. Why would not freedom be the absence of any kind of coercion? Why just government coercion and the supposed threat of democratic coercion? Why exclude the coercion of Big-Business?

The Constitution DOES have a change mechanism, that is how slavery ended, women got the vote, and the income tax was imposed on us. But it takes an OVERWHELMING majority because the Constitution protects the rights of the minority AGAINST the majority, when the majority on a particular topic wants to take those rights away. These limits are considered so basic to this country's identity with liberty that a mere swing of the majority pendulum can't be enough to change them.

And since people are best represented at the local level, federalism is important to me. Someone in Oregon shouldn't have to live like someone in New York if Oregon and New York like to do things differently.

[Zerubbabel]

The Constitution DOES have a change mechanism, that is how slavery ended, women got the vote, and the income tax was imposed on us. But it takes an OVERWHELMING majority because the Constitution protects the rights of the minority AGAINST the majority, when the majority on a particular topic wants to take those rights away. These limits are considered so basic to this country's identity with liberty that a mere swing of the majority pendulum can't be enough to change them.

And since people are best represented at the local level, federalism is important to me. Someone in Oregon shouldn't have to live like someone in New York if Oregon and New York like to do things differently.

Let me restate as in my first paragraph, that I give my approbation to the Constitution. I also believe that it should be interpreted strictly by 'author's intent,' that is why my comment on republican vs democratic. The Framers were not anti-democratic except in the very narrow sense of direct- democracy, favoring instead to copy the English parliamentary system with reforms, such as the sans king part. All those anti-democracy quotes posted early in this thread where uttered during or after the French Revolution. Read in historical context, those comments were political rhetoric distancing the speaker from the guillotine.

The amendment process is generally limited to the overwhelming majority of 'the People.' But as in your example of income tax, and I would add prohibition, It is obvious that seen more precisely - amendment is limited to the overwhelming majority of Congress. Given that Congress can sometimes act in ways contrary to the will of the people, then the Constitution in reality allows a tiny minority of political elites to take away the rights of the overwhelming vast majority of the people ... and they might even get re-elected.

I think there exists many romantic images about the Constitution and the Founders. The Founders were not simple everyday folk, farmers and craftsmen. They were elite politicians, lawyers and businessmen with great ambition. The Constitution did NOT do as is written in the OP: "The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government..." Under the existing Constitution (the word as understood in the day), the Articles of Confederation, it was already established that the 'Continental' government was incredibly limited (couldn't even tax) and all power resided with the States. The new Constitution was the instrument of the vast expansion of Federal, centralized power. And it passed by a very slim margin against those who wanted to amend the Articles of Confederation. Compared to the reality of today where government usurps power not granted it, the Constitution as written seems attractive, but I tell ya that every modern Liberty-loving, tyranny-hating individual, if transported in time would have been against it.

[BSWPaulsen]

I think such a statement could use a definition of "coercion." Before the rise of city-states was there no coercion in the relations of men? If states were forever banished there would be no more coercion? Coercion is always possible. To think otherwise is to be a poor student of human relations.

Coercion will exist regardless of the State, but the State's very basis is coercion. Let's not forget that - business has no similarity in this respect, unethical business practices notwithstanding.

This is that bias I mentioned. OWS simply sees the threat to freedom coming from another direction, another coercive power. Crony-capitalism is not isolated incidences, it is our norm. In reality the TP and OWS are reacting against the same entity. At the turn of the last century GK Chesterton recognized this reality. He called them Hudge and Gudge. Some will hate Hudge while they love Gudge while the others will hate Gudge while they love Hudge. One side wants to rid us of Hudge and keep Gudg, while the other wants to rid us of Gudge and keep Hudge. While all this political discourse is happening, Hudge and Gudge are fornicating in a plush mansion up on the hill, paid for by us all. IMHO

OWS ignores the man behind the curtain, and therefore are summarily dismissed. Crony capitalism needs... *drumroll* the State, by definition. They are railing against the symptom, not the disease. Pointless and ineffectual an endeavor if ever there was one.

The TP at least recognizes the disease, and want to kill that off. Of course, the neo-cons merely want the disease to afflict humanity in the way they desire, so I am focusing on those that want to shrink government in all its forms.

[Zerubbabel]

"Big-business coercion is impossible without ... the State"

"Coercion will exist regardless of the State"

Is the later a recanting of the former? Or is this an unashamed contradiction? If it is a recanting, then your denigration of OWS is unfounded because they indeed are reacting to a very real coercive power that will exist irregardless of the state. Also your ideal of statelessness is not the ideal of coercion-lessness or that of RP's Freedom.


While you want an ethical Gudge ("unethical business practices notwithstanding") divorced from Hudge, the OWS wants a benevolent Hudge (government uncontrolled by big-business) to control that rascally unethical Gudge. Hudge and Gudge OTOH are quite happy with their relationship. If we the people, Left and Right, can't find some common-ground in that, then nothing will ever change. RP has the ability to attract OWS'ers. We should build on that, IMO.

[BSWPaulsen]

Is the later a recanting of the former? Or is this an unashamed contradiction? If it is a recanting, then your denigration of OWS is unfounded because they indeed are reacting to a very real coercive power that will exist irregardless of the state. Also your ideal of statelessness is not the ideal of coercion-lessness or that of RP's Freedom.

The coercion big-business achieves now is impossible without the State.

Coercion absent a monopoly on power is a lesser issue, one more easily dealt with by individuals. That coercion will exist regardless of the State does not mean the State is necessary to solve the problem. Indeed, evidence points to the State merely exacerbating the problem.

No recanting.

While you want an ethical Gudge ("unethical business practices notwithstanding") divorced from Hudge, the OWS wants a benevolent Hudge (government uncontrolled by big-business) to control that rascally unethical Gudge. Hudge and Gudge OTOH are quite happy with their relationship. If we the people, Left and Right, can't find some common-ground in that, then nothing will ever change. RP has the ability to attract OWS'ers. We should build on that, IMO.

What OWS wants is asinine. Full stop. A benevolent Hudge is a contradiction, by definition. Coercion is not a benevolent action, and the State coerces by the very definition of what it constitutes.

Without Hudge your strawman, Gudge, is effectively neutered. Should big business attempt to coerce without government, people will be able to effectively resist without a monopoly on force sanctioning Gudge's behavior, and preventing effective recourse.

Funny how that works.

[sailingaway]

Let me restate as in my first paragraph, that I give my approbation to the Constitution. I also believe that it should be interpreted strictly by 'author's intent,' that is why my comment on republican vs democratic. The Framers were not anti-democratic except in the very narrow sense of direct- democracy, favoring instead to copy the English parliamentary system with reforms, such as the sans king part. All those anti-democracy quotes posted early in this thread where uttered during or after the French Revolution. Read in historical context, those comments were political rhetoric distancing the speaker from the guillotine.

The amendment process is generally limited to the overwhelming majority of 'the People.' But as in your example of income tax, and I would add prohibition, It is obvious that seen more precisely - amendment is limited to the overwhelming majority of Congress. Given that Congress can sometimes act in ways contrary to the will of the people, then the Constitution in reality allows a tiny minority of political elites to take away the rights of the overwhelming vast majority of the people ... and they might even get re-elected.

I think there exists many romantic images about the Constitution and the Founders. The Founders were not simple everyday folk, farmers and craftsmen. They were elite politicians, lawyers and businessmen with great ambition. The Constitution did NOT do as is written in the OP: "The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government..." Under the existing Constitution (the word as understood in the day), the Articles of Confederation, it was already established that the 'Continental' government was incredibly limited (couldn't even tax) and all power resided with the States. The new Constitution was the instrument of the vast expansion of Federal, centralized power. And it passed by a very slim margin against those who wanted to amend the Articles of Confederation. Compared to the reality of today where government usurps power not granted it, the Constitution as written seems attractive, but I tell ya that every modern Liberty-loving, tyranny-hating individual, if transported in time would have been against it.

Next to what they are doing now, it is both attractive and defensible.

I mistook your prior post, however, I thought you wanted it to be EASIER to change.

[Zerubbabel]

No recanting.

Well, every ideology exists with inherent contradictions. Had you not worded yours so that it could be so easily highlighted it wouldn't have been so tempting to go there. Keep yours, I'll keep mine (hopefully not as obvious as yours).

Hudge is symbolic of power, Gudge is symbolic of wealth. Perhaps in a utopian world one can exist without the other. But in our world they seem just so symbiotic. It seems that if one would loose the other that they would simply grow a new one. Power gains wealth, and wealth buys power. They are really quite interchangeable.

...to coerce without government...

Here is maybe where you might leave this Left/Right tangent, stop dreaming of utopian worlds where certain things don't exist and comment on the OP by RP. The entire thread is couched in the acceptance of government for the strict purpose of coercing everybody, supposedly even themselves, to obey the Rule of Law (The Constitution). It seems that your biggest argument is against the OP, not my little tangents.

[Zerubbabel]

Next to what they are doing now, it is both attractive and defensible.

I mistook your prior post, however, I thought you wanted it to be EASIER to change.

I think it should be harder. I think it should include a referendum of the people. But that goes back to the only meaningful distinction between republic and democracy, that people might vote for an elite who would then vote on the issue, and not vote directly on the issue itself. The income tax and prohibition amendments never would have passed, but I also wonder if the 15th would have had to wait a century or so. There is also the idea that the House, who supposedly only represent the will of the people, while the Senate represents the educated elite and balances out the passions of the people ... in our modern age we do not need a man to ride his horse to Philadelphia to vote on behalf of the people, the people could vote directly. As the House holds the purse strings imagine the effect this would have on the size of government and the rapidity in which we go to war. The impassioned people would not get their way because of the Senate and the Government would not get their way because of the House. A hamstrung government. Ahhh utopia!

Playing with intellectual dolls aside - How is it that the Constitution is defensible? When government violates the Constitution how do we defend it? Has that not been the issue RP has fought throughout his career, all the while government has continued it's violations limited only by its own hubris?

[BSWPaulsen]

Well, every ideology exists with inherent contradictions. Had you not worded yours so that it could be so easily highlighted it wouldn't have been so tempting to go there. Keep yours, I'll keep mine (hopefully not as obvious as yours).

That unethical behavior exists does not form an indictment against ethical models. It certainly doesn't form an indictment against voluntarism, et al, or show any inherent contradiction.

While my position is entirely consistent in that all coercion is unethical, yours isn't. You gave this away with your nonsense about benevolent government.

Hudge is symbolic of power, Gudge is symbolic of wealth. Perhaps in a utopian world one can exist without the other. But in our world they seem just so symbiotic. It seems that if one would loose the other that they would simply grow a new one. Power gains wealth, and wealth buys power. They are really quite interchangeable.

The State is a monopoly on force. No symbolism necessary. Business holds no such distinction. Your argument is dismissed due to the fallacy of equivocation.

Here is maybe where you might leave this Left/Right tangent, stop dreaming of utopian worlds where certain things don't exist and comment on the OP by RP. The entire thread is couched in the acceptance of government for the strict purpose of coercing everybody, supposedly even themselves, to obey the Rule of Law (The Constitution). It seems that your biggest argument is against the OP, not my little tangents.

If you were aware of the full breadth of Ron Paul's work, then you would know he is a voluntarist through and through. His championing of the Constitution was definitely not due to a belief in benevolent government, or an acceptance that coercion is ethical. Trying to return to constitutional government is simply a means of damage control in that light.

Voluntarism and Occupy Wall Street are not compatible. By and large they demand increased regulation of the so-called big business, and wealth redistribution. Neither are Ron Paul's calling card. Ron Paul, unlike Occupy Wall Street, realized government is the problem and not part of the solution.

[Zerubbabel]

The Right rightly sees that the basically ethical businessman is corrupted by the violent power of the state. The Left rightly sees that the basically benevolent statesman is corrupted by wealthy special interests. Both sides intuitively and viscerally know that they are right. and are as equally sure that the other is wrong. The sides become so embittered and entrenched in their singular, dogmatic views that they come to believe that the other's terms - "benevolent statesman" and "ethical businessman" - are absurdly self-contradictory. Such a creature can not exist. "Impossible!"


Enter Ron Paul who seeks to embody both of these terms. As a businessman he spoke out against corruption institutionalized into his medical industry and then goes to Washington and votes his conscious and not his self-interest.


Put down the hand-grenade and come out of the foxhole.

[Zerubbabel]

Is not anybody here going to champion the "Republic" canard?

[BSWPaulsen]

The Right rightly sees that the basically ethical businessman is corrupted by the violent power of the state. The Left rightly sees that the basically benevolent statesman is corrupted by wealthy special interests. Both sides intuitively and viscerally know that they are right. and are as equally sure that the other is wrong. The sides become so embittered and entrenched in their singular, dogmatic views that they come to believe that the other's terms - "benevolent statesman" and "ethical businessman" - are absurdly self-contradictory. Such a creature can not exist. "Impossible!"

Strawman fallacies are unimpressive. At this point it's getting tiring.

The State is a monopoly on force. This has been accepted. With the State, possessing a monopoly on force as it does, unethical behavior is entrenched beyond all control when it does occur under the mask of law. A Nobel Prize was awarded to James Buchanan for his work that pointed out that politicians are motivated by their self-interest. Honestly, such a point should be common sense, but I digress. As economics are often related to self-interest, it comes as no surprise that business affairs become tied into State affairs if the government is set up in such a way that it concerns themselves with them.

Humans can behave both ethically and unethically. This is true with, or without, the State. The State, unlike businesses which may or may not be ethical, is alone in that it uniquely possesses the defining feature of being a coercive entity. Unethical businessmen, plus the State, is a terrible formula. The United States has a long history of what you might call "benevolent statesmen", and yet here we are. By the way, ethical businessmen, plus the State, is also a terrible formula. Do you care to take a guess what the common problem here is? Individuals in positions of power that employ the monopoly on force to do their bidding, no matter how arbitrary their bidding may be, so long as it suits their self-interest.

Unlike "The Left" and "The Right" as you've called them, which would insinuate that statesmen/businessmen are assumed benevolent until proven otherwise, I hold no such pretensions that any given individual is going to act a particular way. With this knowledge I am better able to determine that the State is an unnecessary danger to individual liberty due to the basis of what it constitutes. I don't need a leader to act in my interest unless I appoint him myself, by my own decision.

Ron Paul knows this. Why don't you?

[FrankRep]

Is not anybody here going to champion the "Republic" canard?

Republic vs. Democracy


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW6AKVyi6As

[Zerubbabel]

Republic vs. Democracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW6AKVyi6As

The video begins with a misquote. As I wrote in post #43 The verbatim quote as handed down to us through Dr. James McHenry: "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” - “A Republic, if you can keep it.” The full quote clearly shows that to the woman and to the common understanding of the language of the day, the two mutually exclusive options were a Republic or a Monarchy, not a Republic or a Democracy. Disingenuous misquote.


The video ends with three quotes by Founders.


Madison: If one examines the context of given in Federalist #10 he actually defines for us the terms: "democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person" & "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place." For Madison the distinction lies entirely in a direct, or "pure" democracy verses a representative democracy. And if you read #10 he argues that the representative democracy would be much better in the creation of a large centralized government verses the small decentralized more democratic governments that were common in New England townhalls, and what helped to lead to Shays' rebellion.


Hamilton: (read with sarcasm) That big-government archetype who pushed for, and got, strong federal government, standing armies and a centralized national bank, surely meant by "Republic" a system of government under a Rule of Law which protects the rights and liberties of all, including the minority. That of course is why he declared that "we are a republican government" in his argument for ratification of a Constitution sans a Bill of Rights ... and 4 years later, 4 years while we existed as a republic sans a Bill of Rights, when the Bill of Rights finally was conceived of as a good idea, he was a staunch opponent of it.


Adams: Adams yes. But not Sam. This quote is from one of John's letters to John Taylor in 1814. In chapter 18 of the letter (yeah, long letters, aye?) the birchian mis-attributed quote is couched between: “Mangled and Bleeding Victims of Democratic Rage and Popular Fury” in France, during the Despotism of Democracy in that Country, which Napoleon ought to be immortalized for calling Ideology." -and- "Napoleon and all his generals were but creatures of democracy, as really as Rienzi, Theodore, Massaniello, Jack Cade, or Wat Tyler. This democratical hurricane, inundation, earthquake, pestilence, call it which you will, at last aroused and alarmed all the world." It is as I wrote in post #47 "those anti-democracy quotes posted early in this thread where uttered during or after the French Revolution. Read in historical context, those comments were political rhetoric distancing the speaker from the guillotine." Remember, 1814.


These 4 quotes were the only evidence that McManus offered the viewer. One was from a big government scoundrel who clearly demonstrated his understanding of Republic as different from the Birchian view. The others were disingenuous misrepresentations at best. But where this video really discredits itself (I of course am ignoring the whole political spectrum thing) is in it's display of logic, of premise/deduction. At 5:36 McManus gives the etymons of 'republic' as "the public thing" and immediately deduces -I mean deduces so quickly he actually looses his breath for a moment- deduces "The Law" as the public thing. Based on this etymological evidence he then treats this definition as pure fact and inserts this understanding into the Founders quotes.


If Republic = Law, then King Hammurabi formed a republic in ancient Mesopotamia; Biblical Israel under the Torah was a republic; and the Taliban are a republic under Sharia law. No. That is stupid. The founders understood the meaning of republic from historical examples. The most salient was the (short-lived) Roman Republic. It was characterized by balancing branches of power one of which being a plebeian direct-democratic voice. Yet it did not have a written Constitution but only tradition, and an ever-changing common-law (stare decisis). What characterized it most was found in the etymology of 'Republic' ("state in which supreme power rests in the people") which is yes, "a public thing," but "Public" stems from the root populus "people" and is modified by the Latin 'pubes' to mean "the adult population." Citizenship in the Roman Republic was very limited and carried with it many obligations and was most markedly characterized by civic duty and NOT individual rights. That is how the Founders could declare that they created a Republic sans Bill of Rights and not be using what would obviously be seen absurd language according to the Birchian view.

[FrankRep]

The video begins with a misquote. As I wrote in post #43 The verbatim quote as handed down to us through Dr. James McHenry: "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” - “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

The point of the quote is to show that Benjamin Franklin called the our form of government a "Republic."


The Founding Fathers were anti-Democracy.

"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

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
- James Madison

Democracy is the most vile form of government.
- James Madison

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
- John Adams

Nice propaganda spin Zerubbabel, btw.