What If Democracy Is Bunk?
What if you are only allowed to vote because it doesn't make a difference? What if no matter how you vote, the elites get to have it their way? What if "one person, one vote" is just a fiction created by the government to induce your compliance? What if democracy is dangerous to personal freedom? What if democracy erodes the people's understanding of natural rights and the foundations of government, and instead turns elections into beauty contests?
What if democracy allows the government to do anything it wants, as long as more people bother to show up at the voting booth to support it than to oppose it? What if the purpose of democracy is to convince people that they could prosper not through the creation of wealth but through theft from others? What if the only moral way to acquire wealth – aside from inheritance – is through voluntary economic activity? What if the government persuaded you that you could acquire wealth through political activity? What if economic activity included all the productive and peaceful things we do? What if political activity included all the parasitical and destructive things the government does?
What if governments were originally established to protect people's freedom, but always turn into political and imperialist enterprises that seek to expand their power, increase their territory and heighten their control of the population? What if the idea that we need a government to take care of us is actually a fiction? What if our strength as individuals and durability as a culture are contingent not on the strength of the government but on the amount of freedom we have from the government?
What if we're seeing civil unrest around the world precisely because government is out of control? What if the cocktail of big government and democracy brings dependence and destruction? What if big government destroys people's motivations and democracy convinces them that the only motivation they need is to vote and go along with whatever the government does?
What if the Republican primaries we're seeing unfold aren't actually as democratic as they may appear to be? What if the results you have seen from the states that have voted thus far don't match the composition of the delegates those states send to the Tampa convention this summer because the polls aren't what counts, but what counts are the secret meetings that come after the voting? What if Joe Stalin was right when he said the most powerful person in the world is the guy who counts the votes?
What if the greatest tyrant in history lives among us? What if that tyrant always gets its way, no matter what the laws are or what the Constitution says? What if that tyrant is the majority of voters? What if the tyranny of the majority in a democracy recognizes no limits on its power?
What if the government misinforms voters so as to justify anything the government wants to do? What if the government bribes people with the money it prints? What if it gives entitlements to the poor, tax breaks to the middle class and bailouts to the rich just to keep all of us dependent upon it? What if a vibrant republic requires not just the democratic process of voting, but also informed and engaged voters who understand first principles of limited government and free-market economics, and the divine origin of natural rights?
What if we could free ourselves from the yoke of big government through a campaign of education and information and personal courage that leads to a revolutionary return to first principles? What if the establishment doesn't want this? What if the government remains the same no matter who wins elections?
What if because of Ron Paul's presidential campaign, because he isn't campaigning just for votes as his competition is, because he is educating the population and winning the hearts and minds of a once free people and inspiring them to fight for their freedom once more, freedom wins? What if we can be free again? What will it take to make that happen?
Posted by PB on 02/29/12 08:25 AM
Mark, where I live, we aren't allowed to call our council members by name. It's hard, but not impossible, to cover all needed things in 3 minutes not to mention sometimes they will laugh. I agree with you though, if enough people get up and speak, maybe it will have some effect.
Posted by Bischoff on 02/26/12 08:54 PM
"What if a vibrant republic requires not just the democratic process of voting, but also informed and engaged voters who understand first principles of limited government and free-market economics, and the divine origin of natural rights?"
I have the highest regards for Judge Napolitano. He asks all the right questions, particularly the one above.
The United States were formed into a federal republic by thirteen separate and sovereign constitutional republics. The other 37 states joined the original thirteen states in the Union based on the rules laid out in the U.S. Constitution.
Because the states were always presumed separate and sovereign, it was assumed that States could leave the Union, if and when they chose.
The U.S. government in the early years was extremely concerned that there not be a permanent foothold by a European power on the North American continent. The newly formed United States did not want to have their existence threatened by power European politics playing itself out on the North American continent.
It was clear to the framers, that unless the states could work out the question of slavery, a civil war would be inevitable and the survival of the United States would come into question.
The civil war came in 1861. Lincoln was faced with the cecession of the Southern States from the Union, and with their possible alliance with a European powers against the existence of the Union. Lincoln, as President of the United States decided to fight the cecessation attempt, though for the states to belong to and remain in the Union was assumed to be their decision alone.
Lincoln insisted that cecession by the Southern States would put survival of all ramaining states as a Union into question. With the victory over the Southern States, Lincoln established the concept of "insolubility" of the Union. IOW, a state can join the Union, but once it joined, it cannot leave the Union.
The opinions about the correctness of Lincoln's Civil War are many, but whatever Lincoln did, it did not change the form of government of the American Republic established with the U.S. Constitution, nor its "free-market" economy. That came later, when Banks speculated in real estate with excess currency thereby creating boom and bust cycles in the economy. The hardships, as a result of the booms and busts, gave rise to the "Progressive Movement" in the early 1900s.
It was the "Progressive Movement" which demanded more equal distribution of wealth and wanted it done through an Income Tax amendment to the Constitution.
Furthermore, the original Constitution provided for U.S. Senators to be selected by the state legislators. However, since the Republican Congress in 1866 passed a law requiring selection by open voice vote, corruption in the selection of U.S. legislators became a problem so severe that a number of states didn't even send Senators to Washington, DC. The "Progressive Movement" movement wanted an end to corruption in the selection of U.S. Senators and therefore demanded popular elections for U.S. Senators by pushing ratification of the 17th Amendments.
To stop banks from speculating in real estate and creating economic booms and busts, the Congress set out to come up with legislation to create a national currency overseen by the Congress.
When the big NY bankers realized that they couldn't get the Congress to give them control over the national currency in the contemplated Federal Reserve Act, they started to support the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments. That should have been a sign to the "Progressive Movement" that something wasn't right. Nevertheless, the movement took the banker's money anyway. In the end, the 16th and 17th Amendments were ratified in 1913 and laid the basis for the NY FRB to violate the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and to start illegal open market operations in the early 1920s which brought down the redeemable national currency system.
With the passage of the National Banking Act of 1935, the constitutional monetary system and the free-market system established with the Constitution lay in shambles. States no longer had a voice in the Congress to fight the big NY bankers. The Income Tax amendment allowed a Fed central bank to be installed which transformed a once "free-market" economy into a managed supply and demand government controlled economy.
The founders never wanted federal officials elected by a voter pool larger than that of a Congressional District. It was at that level where voters could have personal contact with their U.S. Representative. It was important that people could look a politician in the eye, before they'd give him power over their lives. With the 17th Amendment, U.S. Senators were popularly elected by a voter pool that often exceeded millions. Popular election of U.S. Senators was something over which the Constitutional Convention fought for weeks. It wisely decided against it.
After the ratification of the 17th Amendment, State legislators could no longer recall U.S. Senators. In short order, U.S. Senators became puppets of the big NY bankers and of Wall Street, where there was campaign money to be had. The country hasn't been the same since.
Now, we have Mitt Romney running for President who is backed by the big NY banks and Wall Street. The campaign money flowing from them to Romney is unlimited.
No matter how often Romney repeats it, no matter how much he insists, people know that Romney is no conservative. He is a chill for the monetary elite and the central bankers who want to see the Fed central bank continued. What is really puzzling is that Ron Paul is shielding Romney.
It's an interesting game Ron Paul is playing. What does a Murray Rothbard type libertarian anarchist have in common with a liberal, central bank loving member of the Republican establishment... ??? I can think of only one thing. Both hate conservatives.
A candidate with unlimited money from the big bankers seeking office to carry on the Fed central bank scheme finds support from a candidate who rails against the existence of the "Fed" central bank. Totally amazing... . Talk about Machavellian... .
Like the Judge says, people have a lot to learn, before they can beat the crooks and charlatans trying to take advantage of them. Let's hope its not too late.
Posted by dave jr on 02/26/12 10:19 AM
"Yet libertarian candidates pledge to uphold a US government that depends on force and fraud for its very existence."
To hold office, one must swear to uphold the US Constitution, not the US Government. There is a HUGE difference.
And once in office, there is pressure from the People, special interest or otherwise, to use force and defraud the Constitution. Most expect Government to DO something, even through it is not authorized by the Constitution. Democracy at work.
Posted by cosmos on 02/25/12 04:53 PM
During the War for independence from England, the British Army used wooden ships at anchor in the New York Harbor for prisoners of George Washington's Continental Army. The jails in Lower Manhattan were bad but a person could be dead for a week on the British prison ships for a week before they found and threw him over board.
The thing is this, any one of those men could have walked out of that prison at any time he wanted. All that was required was for him to sign a pledge of allegiance to King George of England, stating that he'd fight British Army no more. That was it and he could go and get a steak and see a movie.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Posted by amanfromMars on 02/25/12 11:04 AM
Oops, apologies are in order there, Mark M. The questionable alien message is of course in reply to your freely shared empowering thoughts.
Posted by amanfromMars on 02/25/12 10:34 AM
That is encouraging news, jg4liberty, to find intelligent life stirring into life in the US. They'll be looking for Future IntelAIgents with Entangling Information to Input Output to the Singularity and its CodedD XSSXXXX Networks
SMART CyberIntelAIgent Intelligence Grids in Protective Virtual Webs.
[object width="640" height="360"][param name="movie" value="Click to view link"][/param][param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"][/param][param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"][/param][embed src="Click to view link" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"][/embed][/object]
Click to view link
Posted by Mark M on 02/25/12 08:37 AM
We can do MUCH more than hope. In the US, a person is guaranteed at least 3 minutes to speak in their local town/board meetings... provided that person has the gumption to show up in the first place. Words, with some precision and accuracy, will resonate and will bring real effects. Go to your next town meeting and speak in the public forum; people will emerge from all around you - it is unbelievable how many are becoming aware of their bondage. And how many seem to need an other to get them off the couch.
Posted by Fimbulvinter on 02/24/12 10:02 PM
OK. I agree with what the judge and Ron Paul have to say for the most part, and they seem to be decent people. Increasing public awareness is usually a good thing.
That said, how about some darker questions?
What if the Ron Paul candidacy is partially a US elite intel op to identify those who will not drink the Kool Aid? (I have met Dr Paul and do not think he is party to this.) No one expects the elite to actually allow Dr Paul to win. Various US police agencies have been known to include "Ron Paul supporters" on their list of potiential domestic terrorists. How likely is it that their agents are compiling lists of these supporters?
What if a US "libertarian candidate" is an oxymoron? Supposedly libertarians do not support the initiation of force or fraud. Yet libertarian candidates pledge to uphold a US government that depends on force and fraud for its very existence. A libertarian candidate in favor of lessening the force and fraud of government must still serve and support that government (if elected) while attempting (likely without sucess) to reduce its use of force and fraud.
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 02/24/12 08:30 PM
Sorry I'm not tech savvy, but I don't think it would help anyway.
It was Stalin who said something like: 'It matters not who votes, only who counts the votes.'
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 02/24/12 08:19 PM
Well Ross apparently I am very narrow minded, since it never even occured to me to think of anyone in government as an adult.
Posted by thinker70 on 02/24/12 06:22 PM
BRAVO for hitting the nail on the head! Amazing that it has taken decades for even a few people to catch on. Voting is only there to make you feel empowered, divide and conquer is alive and well.
My favourite way of describing the situation is simply stating the obvious, no government regardless of party can give anybody anything they do not first take away from someone else.
Wasn't it one of the signers of the Constitution or an early President you said in effect that once people discover that they can vote themselves handouts from the government it will be the end of the republic?
Posted by speedygonzales on 02/24/12 05:49 PM
39 US presidents are from Orange/Hanover/Coburg-Gotha/Windsor dynasty. Al assassinated presidents were not from dynasty. Enough? Including Andrew Jaxon, Abe Lincoln and JFK. This feudal style political system is locked. This is sign how they are scared from freedom, democracy and open elections. There is not even direct elections of head of the country. Make sure there will be right person. And sll this fantasy is backed by unelected supreme court where there is no protestant as member. Catholics and judaists.
Posted by speedygonzales on 02/24/12 05:11 PM
On other side look into Greece. Papndreu in 2009 got 40+%. Today under 8% and is question if they will get into parliament. So yes, there is model wher folx can change government by elections. But this is not case of the USA, most democratic country on world.
Has capitalism failed - and if so what comes next? Justin Rowlatt puts that to Madsen Pirie, president of the Adam Smith Institute, and Loretta Napoleoni author of Mao-nomics, which argues that Chinese communists are now the most effective capitalists.
Click to view link
As US is democratic is also not capitalists. Simple FEUDALISM. Masqueraded as democracy and capitalism.
Posted by speedygonzales on 02/24/12 05:02 PM
"... he is educating the population... " by theory it supposed to be educated as most democratic country on the world, as GWB once stated. I bet on Jebb Bush
Posted by speedygonzales on 02/24/12 04:54 PM
Putin has already announced significant liberalization of the election laws, among them the proposition to further lower the threshold for registering parties with nationwide status. (We will probably never see a similar liberalization of the corresponding US laws, a country where two parties share the eternal monopoly to power. Similar business monopolies are broken up by the anti-trust laws, why don't apply the same principle to these parties that steal the vote in the USA). Thanks to the political reforms that the Government has announced all those competing opposition leaders will soon have a chance to form their own parties by way of collecting the signature from 500 friends instead of the 40,000 needed today. I admit that this is a display of Putin's political genius. Then each of the much touted 'opposition leaders' will have the chance to form their own private pocket parties. Let them compete!
Click to view link
Posted by reegje on 02/24/12 04:38 PM
I think they are parasites not predators.
The Poppycock matter, yes and no. 2008 was not yet such a chaos as it is now, at least not visible for the public, so yes, I can believe that the countries didn't want to play along anymore and from there on you are right on the ball with your statement.
Anyway, since you don't want to dance with me: I shall continue my afternoon and evening with playing beautitul music with my partner: not one dull moment in my life with so many hobbies. We both play kick ass guitar and predominantly Jazz tunes.
So there you have it.
Posted by seer on 02/24/12 03:54 PM
"What if because of Ron Paul's presidential campaign, because he isn't campaigning just for votes as his competition is, because he is educating the population and winning the hearts and minds of a once free people and inspiring them to fight for their freedom once more, freedom wins? What if we can be free again? What will it take to make that happen?" We hope this is the reason and Not some alliance with Romney involving his son Rand which has been bantered about lately.
Posted by rossbcan on 02/24/12 03:50 PM
I don't need to go through and test an enumerated list of items to KNOW, that if they have mass, gravity from greater mass will pull them down.
I know the physical, including human nature principles involved. From initial conditions, even in chaotic systems, the ultimate steady state (balance of powers) result can be generally predicted.
As to the 122 nation initiative, one trillion dollar lawsuit (when the grand theft, civilization is at least 16 trillion, just in the last few years), don't be quick to assume that the parties alleged to be pursuing justice care about anything other than self-interest and providing the "illusion of justice being done".
The worm has turned for states, they have made unachievable, fraudulent promises (their "worth" statement) at incredible cost to civilization and collective survival. They have created existental problems for themselves and, somehow, must create a "value" statement, to appease the people. They have already decimated the productve and regulated away all possibility of free enterprise and productivity.
Yet, predators they remain. The only prey left is elites, their partners in crime and / or, imperial adventures (war), in pursuit of fresh meat.
"Evidently the 2008 crash was started by the 122 Nations that didn't want to go along"
Poppycock. The "crash" is because the productive have withdrawn consent and "shrugged". Investment in production and jobs has dried up because the future is unpredictable chaos and, property rights, non-existant:
Click to view link
Posted by reegje on 02/24/12 03:20 PM
Did you go through the whole thing? as a matter of fact I am still scanning it. It is massive complete with the Occult Halfway Show unleashed upon millions of people around the world during the gladiatorial Superball.
Also it mentions that mass arrests already have been started.
Evidently the 2008 crash was started by the 122 Nations that didn't want to go along with the Cabal's plan of taking over the world: I don't know about you, but that is big news for me.
Now if you're still bored, we can dance!
Posted by budwood on 02/24/12 03:17 PM
Actually, I haven't voted since about the mid-1960s. My last voting was in support of Richard Nixon, but subsequently I realized that any and all political support is a mistake. A BIG mistake!
Looking into the democracy deal, it is apparent that we were (are) being urged to vote because "your vote counts". That statement is one of those pseudo truths which are false. Sure, my vote counted because I was playing their game of political support, but my vote wasn't counting on the plus side for me or for any other voters.
Since then, of course, I have been subjected over the years to that ridiculous comment that "if you don't vote, you can't complain". In other words, if you don't agree to a contact about getting gang raped, you can't complain about the rape.
So, here I am. Supporting all kinds of things that I am against simply because the political types can anti-up a lot more force than I can even consider. And maybe I shouldn't lay the entire deal at the feet of politicians, because there are multitudes of bureaucrats who know on which side their bread is buttered (it's with my butter).
Maybe there's some light of liberty at the end of the tunnel. Seems like us workers are getting a glimpse of that light and are getting restless. We're talking to each other. No wonder the internet has to be controlled.