Has our grand experiment in a republic been a failure?

[Standing Like A Rock]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVYJx...&feature=feedu

I think the guy does a good job explaining how the tyranny that we are under only exists because people think that they are represented. Throughout history, nations have overthrown kings and emperors for being much less tyrannical, but they did so because they saw a single despot controlling their lives. Now that we are "represented" and can vote, people are less inclined to uprise even when there is much more tyranny than one monarch could dream of.

This begs the questions, is a republic really the best form of government? Would we be better off with a monarch, but have him overthrown and replaced every time he gets too tyrannical? Has our grand experiment in a republic been a failure?

Let me know what you think of this.

[heavenlyboy34]

Classic vid monarchy>republic republic FTF(for the fail) ETA: thread needs a poll

[josh b]

I haven't really decided how I feel on the republic vs. monarchy debate.

I will add though that democracy has largely been the reason for the welfare state. Rather than having one person loot from the populace you have everyone scrambling to loot from each other. Elected representatives have an incentive to promise their constituency benefits from the collective pot in order to gain power. That's just part of democratic dynamics. With a monarch there is only one head to put under the guillotine when things get out of control. In a republic it's harder to keep track of what's going on and hold people accountable.

Monarchs have managed to really abuse power as well so this is really difficult to answer. Hans Herman Hoppe has some interesting insights into this.

[LibertyEagle]

[Seraphim]

The irony is that The American Experiment was wildly succesful (in relation to all other societies of the time) because of it's MAINTAINING DEMOCARCY while simultaneously WILDLY caping the power of the majority to abuse minority in said democracy.

Democracy through the marketplace is the grace of order, democracy through professional politics is bane of humanity and entropic.

The majority can consume only so much of the minority until the very foundation of reality can no longer support the load. That is the failure of Political Democracy.

[heavenlyboy34]

The irony is that The American Experiment was wildly succesful (in relation to all other societies of the time) because of it's MAINTAINING DEMOCARCY while simultaneously WILDLY caping the power of the majority to abuse minority in said democracy.

Democracy through the marketplace is the grace of order, democracy through professional politics is bane of humanity and entropic.

The majority can consume only so much of the minority until the very foundation of reality can no longer support the load. That is the failure of Political Democracy.

I totally disagree. The reason the American experiment was successful at all is because it had (at one time) a moral core thanks to generations of popular acceptance of Christian ethics and morality. This made the majority of people stronger(mentally and spiritaully) and more ethical than the minority (office holders)-the latter of which were and are destined to be corrupted by the centralization of power inherent in the American system (save for a few characters like RP).

[A Son of Liberty]

Why am I an "anarchist"? Because the individual is the only legitimate political entity. All attempts to ensnare the individual into any groups and grant those groups "rights" is a corruption of the individual. Can "the people" think? Can "the people" feel? Who can think with my/your mind? Who can feel with my/your heart?

So by that standard, the video propogates primarily two unsubstantiated claims:

1. "Toward the middle of the political spectrum can be found the type of government limited to it's proper role of protecting the rights of the people."

This is an arbitrary standard. What of those who wish for a greater or lesser role for goverment? Why should all generations following the establishment be ultimately forced to adhere to a prior generations arbitrarily set standard for "the proper role of government"? This is a philosophical question Jefferson himself has asked. The only way this arbitrary standard for the establishment of government can persist is by forcing all individuals to accept it.

2. "But this is a mistake, because as the ancient greeks stated, 'without law there can be no freedom'".

This is a slogan. On it's face, I would agree with it, if the law is the soveriegnty of the individual. This is the only objective truth - Who can think with my/your mind? Who can feel with my/your heart? Only that individual.

Of course, it's evident that the greeks and the narrator are referring to fiat law, which also is arbitrary. People obviously disagree on even the macro levels of governance, nevermind the minutiae of the American Republic. If it were not so, the government would not have changed a lick since the adoption of the constitution; and yet here we are 200-some years later with the greatest leviathan humanity has ever known.

Granting that the rule of law is the best system of government, it does however require that the government - an agency with the power to approve it's own interpretation of the laws which bound it - respect those establishing laws. This is obviously a folly. Again, the American government was established with greater checks on it's power than any other government in history, I believe... how many times shall we be required to roll this boulder back up the mountain?

The narrator claims that all forms of government eventually devolve to oligarchy except the republic. So we have a choice between oligarchy and republicanism. This is observably false as the Greek and Roman republics devolved to democracy, empire and oligarchy and it seems as though the American republic is as well. So the narrator actually proves the TRUE anarchist point - that all forms of government eventually revert to despotism and are ultimately destructive of individual sovereignty.

A few other observations:

He made the statement that civilized people hire someone to protect life, property, etc. He actually said "HIRE". Hello?

I'll grant his use of "anarchists" to refer to those who seek chaos and ultimately oligarchy, but he ignores the political philosophy of we anarcho-capitalists/market-anarchists/voluntaryists/what-have-you whose true political philosophy is respect for the sovereignty of the individual - true individual freedom. Thus I take his political spectrum to be incomplete.

[Standing Like A Rock]

I haven't really decided how I feel on the republic vs. monarchy debate.

I will add though that democracy has largely been the reason for the welfare state. Rather than having one person loot from the populace you have everyone scrambling to loot from each other. Elected representatives have an incentive to promise their constituency benefits from the collective pot in order to gain power. That's just part of democratic dynamics. With a monarch there is only one head to put under the guillotine when things get out of control. In a republic it's harder to keep track of what's going on and hold people accountable.

Monarchs have managed to really abuse power as well so this is really difficult to answer. Hans Herman Hoppe has some interesting insights into this.

Yes, I think that now there are 434 ( President and congress minus Ron and Rand Paul) people coming up with new ideas to rob us, oppress us and make wars, There is no way that just one man could do so much. And if he did, he certainly could not justify or get away with it.

I will also add that a king owns everything in his kingdom, so he has an incentive to actually make his country prosperous. He would not waste his own money unnecessary wars and certainly not wasteful social programs. Our "representatives" aren't spending their own money so they don't have the same incentive to make good economic decisions.

[Travlyr]

If the current ruling class is not adhering to constitutional republic principles, then how do people justify claiming it as failing?

[Standing Like A Rock]

Why am I an "anarchist"? Because the individual is the only legitimate political entity. All attempts to ensnare the individual into any groups and grant those groups "rights" is a corruption of the individual. Can "the people" think? Can "the people" feel? Who can think with my/your mind? Who can feel with my/your heart?

So by that standard, the video propogates primarily two unsubstantiated claims:

1. "Toward the middle of the political spectrum can be found the type of government limited to it's proper role of protecting the rights of the people."

This is an arbitrary standard. What of those who wish for a greater or lesser role for goverment? Why should all generations following the establishment be ultimately forced to adhere to a prior generations arbitrarily set standard for "the proper role of government"? This is a philosophical question Jefferson himself has asked. The only way this arbitrary standard for the establishment of government can persist is by forcing all individuals to accept it.

2. "But this is a mistake, because as the ancient greeks stated, 'without law there can be no freedom'".

This is a slogan. On it's face, I would agree with it, if the law is the soveriegnty of the individual. This is the only objective truth - Who can think with my/your mind? Who can feel with my/your heart? Only that individual.

Of course, it's evident that the greeks and the narrator are referring to fiat law, which also is arbitrary. People obviously disagree on even the macro levels of governance, nevermind the minutiae of the American Republic. If it were not so, the government would not have changed a lick since the adoption of the constitution; and yet here we are 200-some years later with the greatest leviathan humanity has ever known.

Granting that the rule of law is the best system of government, it does however require that the government - an agency with the power to approve it's own interpretation of the laws which bound it - respect those establishing laws. This is obviously a folly. Again, the American government was established with greater checks on it's power than any other government in history, I believe... how many times shall we be required to roll this boulder back up the mountain?

The narrator claims that all forms of government eventually devolve to oligarchy except the republic. So we have a choice between oligarchy and republicanism. This is observably false as the Greek and Roman republics devolved to democracy, empire and oligarchy and it seems as though the American republic is as well. So the narrator actually proves the TRUE anarchist point - that all forms of government eventually revert to despotism and are ultimately destructive of individual sovereignty.

A few other observations:

He made the statement that civilized people hire someone to protect life, property, etc. He actually said "HIRE". Hello?

I'll grant his use of "anarchists" to refer to those who seek chaos and ultimately oligarchy, but he ignores the political philosophy of we anarcho-capitalists/market-anarchists/voluntaryists/what-have-you whose true political philosophy is respect for the sovereignty of the individual - true individual freedom. Thus I take his political spectrum to be incomplete.

I saw a really good youtube video illustrating many of the points you made, but cannot seem to find it. If I do, I will post it.

[Standing Like A Rock]

If the current ruling class is not adhering to constitutional republic principles, then how do people justify claiming it as failing?

Because it failed to follow those principles and protect people's freedoms. A king can do the same thing, but what makes a republic worse is that when it fails, people are less inclined to overthrow that government, while they are more inclined to over throw one man.

[Travlyr]

Because it failed to follow those principles and protect people's freedoms. A king can do the same thing, but what makes a republic worse is that when it fails, people are less inclined to overthrow that government, while they are more inclined to over throw one man.

It has not failed. The people are in charge of their own protections. People are duty bound to rule themselves and to enforce their lawmaker's promise to uphold their oath of office.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of our land here in America. Rulers have ignored it because they could without going to jail. Nevertheless, the supreme law of the land is still valid and it is up to the people to require that the rulers do live up to their oath of office.

The Republic has been subverted since 1861. The Republics are still valid.

[Theocrat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVYJx...&feature=feedu

I think the guy does a good job explaining how the tyranny that we are under only exists because people think that they are represented. Throughout history, nations have overthrown kings and emperors for being much less tyrannical, but they did so because they saw a single despot controlling their lives. Now that we are "represented" and can vote, people are less inclined to uprise even when there is much more tyranny than one monarch could dream of.

This begs the questions, is a republic really the best form of government? Would we be better off with a monarch, but have him overthrown and replaced every time he gets too tyrannical? Has our grand experiment in a republic been a failure?

Let me know what you think of this.

The prerequisite to any successful republic is self-government. If people are not self-governed themselves, they will not be able to govern others. Really, governing by representation is an act of serving your constituents, to protect their God-given rights against domestic and foreign threats.

Essentially, the people are the bosses of their representatives. Once a representative gets the idea that he is the master over those whom he represents, that will be the indication that he is no longer being self-governed (because he is not restraining himself from abusing his power). Also, the people need to be responsible by holding their representatives accountable.

But imagine if we had 535 Ron Paul-like people in Congress. We would not be facing the current distresses we have now because we would be represented by individuals who, not only obey the rule of law, but are also self-governed.

[heavenlyboy34]

It has not failed. The people are in charge of their own protections. People are duty bound to rule themselves and to enforce their lawmaker's promise to uphold their oath of office.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of our land here in America. Rulers have ignored it because they could without going to jail. Nevertheless, the supreme law of the land is still valid and it is up to the people to require that the rulers do live up to their oath of office.

The Republic has been subverted since 1861. The Republics are still valid.

Come, now. How do you expect "the people" to hold "the rulers" accountable when the Ruling Class is in charge of the big guns and force of law?

[heavenlyboy34]

Because it failed to follow those principles and protect people's freedoms. A king can do the same thing, but what makes a republic worse is that when it fails, people are less inclined to overthrow that government, while they are more inclined to over throw one man.

qft! +rep

[A Son of Liberty]

I saw a really good youtube video illustrating many of the points you made, but cannot seem to find it. If I do, I will post it.

Please do, because I ad lib'd it!

[Travlyr]

Come, now. How do you expect "the people" to hold "the rulers" accountable when the Ruling Class is in charge of the big guns and force of law?

Start by voting for Ron Paul 2012

[ClayTrainor]

Start by voting for Ron Paul 2012

That's certainly not a terrible idea, but I'd say the best place to start is by educating ourselves and learning how to properly communicate the message with others. It's our neighbors, friends and family that we must appeal to.

Whether or not Ron Paul becomes president, it is the hearts and minds of our friends, family and neighbors that must be influenced in order to achieve a better world.

[Travlyr]

That's certainly not a terrible idea, but I'd say the best place to start is by educating ourselves and learning how to properly communicate the message with others. It's our neighbors, friends and family that we must appeal to.

Whether or not Ron Paul becomes president, it is the hearts and minds of our friends, family and neighbors that must be influenced in order to achieve a better world.

For sure. The power elite were very clever before the Internet busted their power of secrecy. The government schooling system, the media, and the power to create as much money as needed to pay for huge security teams won the day before Tim Berners-Lee invented the truth machine.

[Napoleon's Shadow]

[LibertyEagle]

That's certainly not a terrible idea, but I'd say the best place to start is by educating ourselves and learning how to properly communicate the message with others. It's our neighbors, friends and family that we must appeal to.

Whether or not Ron Paul becomes president, it is the hearts and minds of our friends, family and neighbors that must be influenced in order to achieve a better world.

I'd thank you not to in any way be encouraging people not to vote.

THE most important thing Americans can do right now is to get Ron Paul elected.

[ClayTrainor]

I'd thank you not to in any way be encouraging people not to vote.

THE most important thing Americans can do right now is to get Ron Paul elected.

It almost feels like you didn't even read my post...