What Is Democracy? What Is A Republic?


Simply stated, democracy is a majority rule.

So, if 51% of the people get what they want, then 49% of the people get something they don’t want.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep sitting down to discuss dinner plans.

Where as a republic form of government, which is guaranteed by the constitution, is well armed sheep.

You see, in the republic form of governance (not to be mistaken with the Republican Party, at all, in the least!) – but in the republic form of governance, each party, group, or individual would be represented and included. A law or bill, and especially an amendment to the constitution itself would be extremely difficult to get ratified. This is a good thing, and exactly what the founding fathers had in mind – less government and more liberty. And for good reason…

The idealistic writers of the constitution, believing that parties, special interests, lobbies, and politicians would never be able to set their claws into the beautifully written concepts for which the constitution set forth, made the mistake of concluding that like themselves, the future elected leaders of the country would be both statesmen and representatives of the people. This of course was and certainly is not the case. Education is one huge factor in this. Uneducated voting is nothing more than a popularity contest similar to American Idol, where winners are chosen by the producers under the false pretense that the voting public actually elected the winner.

One might rebut and say that we have a democratic republic…

But in truth, the two concepts are way too opposite from each other to be used to describe each other. This is because a majority rule can never represent the minority need (nor the minority of one) as in a true republic like the one described in the constitution.

The Bill Of Rights are God-given. They are not privileges to be suffocated and chiseled away by legalities and statues forced upon the public by weasels in fancy suits, ties and black robes. Government owned corporations were never intended to be the police, the treasury, the municipalities, the army, or the appointed legislators.

But this is what we have become: a democracy. A better title would be an oligarchical corpocracy (fascism) – corporations owned through investment by the government, whom advertise popular candidates like Obama, knowing that once he is elected he will appoint former, current, and future corporation lobbyists, CEO’s, and board members into positions favorable to private government/corporate no-bid contracts, thus ensuring future revenue generation for the government-owned corporations while generating wealth and kickbacks for the corporate representatives that are appointed by the elected official, namely the president of the United States corporation – U.S. Inc.

Thus, when we hear our politicians and media hounds constantly harping about bringing democracy to the rest of the world, what this really means is that United States Incorporated wants to expand its business base internationally – be it oil in Iraq, poppy seeds in Afghanistan, water and mineral rights in South America, or simply the power to use our corporate and United Nations controlled military to destroy a countries infrastructure so that companies like Halliburton can receive billions in taxpayer money to rebuild what U.S. Inc. destroys. All of this in the name of democracy?

Let’s try: all of this in the name of corporate big-business.

And the human element, as we’ve seen in the Middle East, is much like an exterminator killing cockroaches. The only difference is that the pest control industry provides the necessary protective equipment and tools for their exterminators, whilst the military just denies its soldiers medical claims for their wounds and traumas sustained due to a lack of equipment and a general lack of  human emotion and callous disregard for it’s soldiers well being. I have a feeling that if the pest control corporations could get away with this crime, it would stop providing safety equipment for it’s exterminators tomorrow.

The U.S. government is a holding company, a concentration of monetary funds, investments, and the power of allocation of monies, allowing for the corporate employees (politicians being paid by these corporations before, during, and after his or her term is done) to legislate in favor of corporate need and with total disregard of the people they are meant to represent. Why do you think men like Clinton, Bush, and Cheney are now on multiple corporate boards, earning millions of dollars for attending a meeting once or twice a year?

A republic requires 100% of the vote, both in elections and in a jury trial. While a democracy only requires majority rule. This is great, as long as you are in the majority! But can you imagine if the choice to use nuclear weapons was left up to a majority, especially the uneducated and socially manipulated population. How many times have you heard that, regarding the middle-east, “we should just nuke em”? This is why the average people should not be in a position to vote. They do not understand what they are voting for, besides the best sound byte and promises from the prettiest face and fanciest suit. This was the purpose of electing a statesman to represent the people.  The constitutionalists were sure that the state of education would be top notch in their new country… and that the people would never forget the reasons why they set up a republic in the first place, and not a democracy. But as with all things, the people are doomed to repeat their past – thanks to the purposeful corporate degradation of the school system and radio and television.

If our system of government were truly of the form granted by the constitution for the United States of America, this is how the congress and senate voting sessions would go:

1) A bill or amendment would be put forth onto the floor of the legislature.

2) Debate over the quality, constitutionalism, practical application, and future ramifications would then ensue for many days, weeks, or months since every state representative would be needed to justify the passage of this new law. This ideological barrier was purposeful, so that 99% of the laws and statutes that are passed and in effect now could not have been passed. If one independent statesman stood up and voted no, then it would have to be re-written and re-debated until all representatives shared a common desire to see this bill become law.

3) Once all minorities are fully represented and content with the bill, it would then be passed by the house, then the senate. And finally, the president (being a true statesman and not a shill for corporate interests) would have to decide if the bill was indeed constitutional and good for the country. If he did not, he could veto the bill. But this veto is not the final authority, for the representatives of the states could force the bill through despite the executive branches action.

This is what was originally a constitutional set of checks and balances for the republic, where each legislative body must respect and approve the others actions, ensuring total representation for all people. But this is no longer the case. Now, the president (of the corporation) does as he wishes, or more accurately, what he is told to do by his appointed hierarchy and the corporate structure they represent.

Who does the president appoint to these positions of power and regulation?

Well, in March President Obama announced that he was appointing Islam A. Siddiqui as Chief Agricultural Negotiator, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Islam Siddiqui is a pesticide lobbyist and Vice President for Science and Regulatory Affairs at CropLife America, an agribusiness lobbying group that represents Monsanto.

Monsanto is a government controlled corporation, and one that is ruining the organic and wholesome food markets in favor of its genetically modified organisms (GMO) that look the same as corn, soybeans, and other crops. But they are altered clones of real food, with deadly pesticides built into the genetic code of the seeds.

The reason for this purposeful mutation of living organisms? The patenting of life itself.

From the blood in your body, to the foods that you grow, to the animals you raise and eat, to the DNA that you are made up by, companies like Monsanto are allowed to own life by putting a government (corporate) patent on each monstrosity they create, while simultaneously attempting and succeeding in killing and removing from the markets the original life or heirloom seeds that humans have used from the beginning of our time.

By appointing Monsanto and other corporate representatives into the government offices that write the regulatory laws for which these giant corporations operate under, our legislative body has become nothing more than a corporate permission giving body, there to ensure that the anti-trust, health-codes, and other regulations are in fact deregulated for ease of transition into a completely corporately dominated, government owned corpocracy with no representation for the people whatsoever. The laws which govern corporate greed and thievery are being written by the corporations’ lobbyists that they in turn paid millions to get appointed through the election of the president, who would then appoint them.

This type of majority representation of the corporations and not of the people is where we stand now. Our legislature is on a level of coruption unheard of in even the most devilish of oligarchies or communist regimes, with banks running the treasury and economy, pharmacuiticals running healthcare, chemical weapons companies running agriculture, insurance companies running the judicial, private security running the police and military, media companies running the propaganda, and the United Nations running the show. If all the world is indeed the stage, then we are not merely players, but corporate debt slaves.

One last word on what a democracy really is…

The word democracy does not ever appear in the Declaration Of Independence, nor in the constitution.  It also never appears in any of the 50 state constitutions. In short, we are not supposed to be a democracy.

The founding fathers actually did everything they could to keep our new country out of a democracy, knowing that a democracy is just a patriotic word for an oligarchy.

“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: “Father of the Constitution” from: The Federalist Papers – Essay 10 —

“We are a republican government. Real Liberty is never found in despotism or the extremes of democracy” — Alexander Hamilton

“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.” — Samual Adams

I think that many people, in studying the constitution, overlook the fact that this is true. I think that many people think that the constitution was the inventor of the democracy, and do not understand that Rome was a democracy as it fell. And I do not think that America has much longer to live, if you can call our current despotism, bankruptcy, hunger, pharmaceutical poisoning, homelessness and moral degradation living.

On a final note, here is a list of past democracies, and how long they lasted. Compare these with the United States…

†———————————-†———————————-†

The Tytler Cycle

†———————————-†———————————-†

The Scottish historian Alexander Tytler composed the following theory:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.

“From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:


From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage.”


Consider now that the following empires all lasted just a bit over 200 years:

Assyria (859-612 B.C.): a 247-year reign.
Persia (538-330 B.C.): a 208-year reign.
Greece (331-100 B.C.): a 231-year reign.
The Roman Republic (260-27 B.C.): a 233-year reign.
The Roman Empire (27 B.C.-180 A.D.): a 207-year reign.
The Arab Empire (634-880 A.D.): a 246-year reign.
The Mameluke Empire (1250-1517 A.D.): a 267-year reign.
The Ottoman Empire (1320-1570 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
Spain (1500-1750 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
Romanov Russia (1682-1916 A.D.): a 234-year reign.
Great Britain (1700-1950 A.D.): a 250-year reign.
The United States (1790-2010 A.D.): 220 years and counting.

***List compiled by Chuck Baldwin – Constitutional Party presidential candidate in 2008 that most voters never even knew was on the ballot until election day, due to a media blackout on “alternative” and “third party” candidates.

• Now consider that the United States has been around – since winning it’s war for independence and becoming a nation – for 220 years.

• Or depending on your historical perspective, since 1776 – the unofficial humble beginnings of our country through the Declaration of Independence – for 234 years (Coincidentally, just one more year than the Roman republic-turned-democracy listed above).

.

Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
Saturday, April 16th, 2010

Leave a comment

12 Comments

  1. Do we need a Referendum For A New Democracy?

    Are you concerned about the future of democracy? Do you feel democracy is under attack by extreme greed in countries around the world? Are you sick and tired of: living in fear, corporate greed, growing police state, government for the rich, working more but having less?

    Can we use both elections and random selection (in the way we select government officials) to rid democracy of undue influence by extreme wealth and wealth-dominated mass media campaigns?

    The world’s first democracy (Athenian democracy, 600 B.C.) used both elections and random selection. Even Aristotle (the cofounder of Western thought) promoted the use random selection as the best way to protect democracy. The idea of randomly selecting (after screening) juries remains from Athenian democracy, but not randomly selecting (after screening) government officials. Why is it used only for individual justice and not also for social justice? Who wins from that? …the extremely wealthy?

    What is the best way to combine elections and random selection to protect democracy in today’s world? Can we use elections as the way to screen candidates, and random selection as the way to do the final selection? Who wins from that? …the people?

    Reply
    • Unfortunately, democracy is anti-republic.

      Therefore, no referendum, no addendum, no amendment, and no rewriting can ever make the concept of a democracy into anything other than what it is at its core… communism.

      Majority rule will never equate to equal rights for all, nor will it ever protect the minority of one.

      The first step is to admit we are not under the constitution, nor are our politicians bound by any oath to it. Only then can we dust of the Articles and the constitution and rewrite it non-interpretively for modern times, and re-declare our country as a free republic.

      Democracy always has and always will be death to any nation who adopts it. America is obviously no exception.

      Reply
  2. Democracy vs. Republic
    By Daniel J Towsey
    danieltowsey.wordpress.com
    http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheTruthSoldiersClub/message/481

    This is going to be a very short article to make a simple point. People who live in a functioning republic absolutely believe that their system is the best for the simply reason that in a republic. The individuals’ rights are inalienable human rights of individuality that are guaranteed to all human beings and can not be taken away by the fifty-one percent of the majority as in a democracy.

    Well in a democracy the fifty-one percent can vote to stop tyranny and fascism. In a republic no percentage of the peoples vote means or has any effect on government or despotism.

    In a democracy when the people take to the streets in protest. The government listens, as it realizes that if enough people are upset. It can change the government. In a republic it does not matter how many people get upset as everything functions on an individual basis. That therefore provides the perfect means for a dictator to control the government.

    Why would anyone in a republic ever believe that individuals’ rights in a democracy are not protected? That’s what the bill of human rights is for.

    One important point I need to make that affects either form of government.

    If in either government the people do not control the money than you do not have any freedom or liberty.

    As is the case with all so called democracies of the world.

    As they are all controlled by the Federal Reserve systems. Except in Canada. Canadians still control their money.

    Canada has its own bank known as the Bank of Canada. But that is about to end.

    Under the North American Union. The three leaders of Mexico, USA and Canada have already signed the agreement to replace their currencies with the ‘Amero’ currency.

    When this goes into effect these three countries well cease to have any form of Democracy or Constitutional Republic. For if the people do not control the money, than they do not control anything.

    As the money truly does control everything.

    Once you loose the control of the money you loose your sovereignty, you become a slave of the credit system that is then controlled by a secret group that does not respond to any individuals rights and liberties.

    The Federal Reserve system is just another device of communism…

    You have now been informed. So join the “TRUTH REVOLUTION’
    by spreading the truth.. For without truth you well never be free.

    Related Articles
    What Is Democracy? What Is A Republic?
    https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/what-is-democracy-what-is-a-republic/
    Republic or Democracy Essay Censored in Utah
    http://www.iiipublishing.com/blog/2010/02/blog_02_27_2010.html

    COMMENTS
    Duanne Luckow
    Hi Daniel, You have all the correct information and i thank you for posting. Money is the control of everything material except your individual mind and heart. This is the only thing they cannot get to unless you are on drugs, alcohol or …being used with physic or remote viewing techniques. Your article was simple and to the point! I am thinking gold and silver may be implemented back into our monetary system. The reason is very few have it and or realize this is in our constitution. BTW, Canada has huge oil reserves that is being kept quiet.

    Reply
  3. Quetzalcoatl

     /  June 12, 2011

    In the first republic (and in my opinion the only authentic republic in the history of mankind) Rome, it took a couple of centuries of warfare and social problems for the plebeians to “acquire” power against the patricians by adding to the Roman senate tribunes that represented the interests of the free man of the republic that were poor and had no other thing in life but their offspring or “prole” hence the modern term “dictatorship of the proletariat” coined by the communists.
    Since such an “arrangement” does not exist in any modern “democracy” or “republic” I don’t believe any modern country is truly a republic in the authentic sense of the word. We have the perfect example in Mexico where senators self authorize a raise without anybody to place a veto and we dare to call it “Republica Mexicana”. How is it going in that aspect there in the US my dear friends???
    It would be lovely to hear opinions.

    Reply
  4. Marika

     /  July 7, 2012

    Here is from 10 year old test taking kid on US history.

    Question:

    How has the main economic activity of the United States changed over time?

    His answer:

    It has changed from a republic to democracy.

    The answer was marked as wrong by his teacher of course. I got him an A+

    And as a bonus I will throw another Q/A from the same test.

    Q: What are the two ways in which the population of the United States has changed since the US became a country?
    A: Immigration and sneaking in

    This one as well was marked wrong. Ahh, homeschooling pays off. This was his first year in a government school.

    I know you verify everything Clint, so if you want I will e-mail you a copy of the original😉

    Reply
    • Marika

       /  July 7, 2012

      AWWW and I just realized that the test was taken on my birthday “Thanks for the present son!”

      Reply
  5. Sorry, I have to disagree with your analysis of Democracy vs. Republic. I don’t want to tie up you whole blog with a long comment, so I offer this link to my old blogspot blog. One day I hope to transfer it. This is how I came to look at the question after years of considering it.

    http://phreedomphan-lostliberty.blogspot.com/2011/12/myths-misconceptions-and-misdirections.html

    Reply
    • You might be surprised to know that I totally agree with you!

      You describe the learning process, and I am the first (now) to state my errors in past posts. I keep them up to remind me of the arrogance of ignorance that used to guide my opinion.

      I will say that the ideal government would be the idealistic thought of what a republic could actually be, but we in America have never had it, and it likely will never exist.

      So thanks for pointing out my fallacy, and know that I feel exactly as you do with regards to trying to wake people up from being what they believe is awake already. The truth movement is a fallacy!

      Reply
      • The best depiction I’ve ever seen of knowledge and why most people never learn, at least regarding politics and history, is a pencil dot and a small circle on a piece of paper.

        The dot represents the knowledge of most people and the circle that of the few who are at least somewhat aware. The circumference of each represents contact with things unknown.

        The possessor of the pencil dot knowledge comes in contact with little he doesn’t know and concludes he knows everything. He goes back to his TV. The dot remains unchanged.

        The circle owners, on the other hand, see so much that there is to learn. They reach out to grasp it and pull it into their circles. If they are successful, their circles grow and they encounter more unknown. Sometimes, as in our case with democracies and republics, our circle doesn’t grow because old “knowledge” is exchanged for the new, but I think the circle becomes more solid.

        I think we are circle owners. To you and I falls the unhappy lot of seeking to increase our knowledge only to learn, with each increase, that the expansion of the unknown has dwarfed the growth of the known.

        Regarding the “truth movement.” I think this was from Orwell, “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” A good corollary might be: “He who controls the Truth Movement controls the ‘Truth.’”

        Reply
  6. Nitin

     /  June 10, 2013

    The problem is you are fixing the parameters. 49% getting unsatisfied and 51% being satisfied. 51-49 ratio is the decider ratio. Selected representative needs to cater to promises made to 51% but also satisfy the needs of 49%, coz there is no way of knowing the 51%, for next elections. Satisfying one group makes other deprived, to whom you should then cater in next elections. This also brings social equality.

    Democracy has its flaws, as to stay in power, government make irrational promises and policies which are good in short term but overall bad for long term. So it is not a stable form of government.

    However it is faster as you do not need to satisfy entire 100% to amend laws. You say it is bad and laws shouldn’t be changed that easily. But its like saying – ‘These are the plans I made, steps I will take and this is what I will follow, no matter how future unfolds’. So I will choose democracy over republic, as it atl east gives power to people. Problem is you are US, a republic – No.1, and I am India, a democratic – No 101. Sigh,

    Reply
  1. Apa benda republik dan apa beza dengan pemerintahan sekarang? « INNERBLOG

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: