“Earlier this month, 30 distinguished political scientists from around Asia and Europe met in Seoul, Korea, to ask “What is Democracy?” Their answers yielded little by way of a practical answer; what was important was their willingness to at least ask the question.
“In the United States we seem to have neither the time nor the inclination to be bothered with such inquiries. In the words of Ortega y Gasset, we live in a “self-satisfied age.” Here, democracy is what democracy does, and we all agree that we want more of it.” [Full Article]
{ 1 comment }
The 1787 Constitution, authored under utmost secrecy, abolished any possibility of an evolving republican FORM of government under the 1777 Articles of Confederation by creating a democratic-republic which is no republic at all. The reason democracy holds common popularity is that no recollection remains today of the nature of a republic. It is not just a name, it is a pyramidal structure as indicated in Exodus 18:21. Please look it up.
Unlike democracy with its voting in secrecy for public officials at all levels, a republic starts with the basic ten-family unit (called a “tun” in Saxon England). With the Iroquois Constitution (the inspiration for our Articles of Confederation) it was the women who selected one man to sit in the first council. From there on each council would select one man to sit at any required higher level. All councils would be limited to fifty members. One participant in the Constitutional convention warned that what they were proposing could result in more than fifty members in the Congress, resulting in democratic chaos. Hundreds existed in Saxon England between a ville and a shire, according to Black’s Law dictionary and I believe Hundreds courts may still exist in some of our southern states where remnants of Saxon heritage still exist in memory.
At any rate it would take but four or five levels from the tun to the Congress, out of which one member would be picked as President, and others selected as Supreme court justices.
Very little sovereignty would ever reach the top, most retained at the family level where it belongs. There would be no excuse for political parties, nor elections. No lobbyists, no voting. The highest level could well subsist on duties, excises and tariffs as originally proposed.
Under democracy all citizens surrender their sovereignty every two years by the act of voting. State sovereignty was surrendered to the federation via the Constitution.
I wish I could remember who said “democracy is that system of government whereby the worst elements of society may always rise to the top.” Democracy appeals to mankind’s basest instinct, survival at the expense of one’s fellows. “Majority rule” insures lots of losers, who are then plundered by the winners. It is the basis of all governmental structures leftwards of a republic. We at present are more of a fascist/communist hybrid than we are a social-democracy.
All of the glories of democracy are delusions. The franchise offers no measure of control to the public for they surrender their control via the ballot. As has been said “you can fool all of the people some of the time,” and the rest of the flock follow right along.
Comments on this entry are closed.