Monday, December 5, 2011

Myths, Misconceptions, and Misdirections

These are just a few thoughts and concepts I've developed or adopted over the years. I've used them often in various political discussion groups, usually having to rewrite them each time because I couldn't find them in my files. I decided to put them up here in case someone might be interested. Hopefully, they'll stimulate some thought on the subjects.

My original intent was to classify each item under one of the above categories. I found it difficult to apply those labels. What starts as a misconception by some, can be picked up and used by those wanting to misdirect the people. As the misconception or misdirection grows in acceptance and expands through repetition and expansion by large numbers of people, it can assume almost mythical proportions. Because of the trouble I was having in classifying them, I decided instead to let readers, if there are any, decide for themselves which is applicable.

Democracy or Republic?

When I first got involved in politics, maybe I should say, “counter-politics”, I got caught up in the discussion of Democracy vs. Republic. Those who favored limited government liked to say, “We're a Republic not a Democracy.” Their argument was that in a Democracy 50%+1 of the population could “democratically” vote away the rights and property of those who lacked that extra 1. Supposedly, this couldn't happen in a Republic. It made sense to me in my political infancy, so I dutifully parroted the mantra.

Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately for my peace of mind, I tend to analyze ideas even after initially accepting them. As I gave it more thought, something seemed to be missing in the Democracy vs. Republic argument. To see if a Republic, a Representative Democracy, could protect against minority rule, I developed a spreadsheet taking the voting age population at the time divided into its legislative districts.

I found that a minority much smaller than the 50%+1 needed to control a Democracy could control a Republic. I've long since lost that spreadsheet and I haven't the time, desire, nor ambition to try to duplicate it, but I will use a hypothetical Republic. Its concept is sound and it is much easier to illustrate. It works the same even in a country the size of the U.S.

My Republic is small. There are 1.1 million and 11 eligible voters equally divided among 11 states with one legislative district in each, so state and legislative district are interchangeable terms and its legislative body consists of 11 representatives. My hypothetical voter count is chosen to allow for a 50%+1 majority in a district.

About 65% of the population of the republic has blue eyes and 35% brown. If in six of its districts the voters elect, on a vote count of 50,001 to 50,000, a representative who promises to confiscate the wealth of all with blue eyes and give it to those with brown then the “redistributionists” would have a 6 to 5 majority in their “Congress” and could make such a program law. It doesn't matter if the other five representatives were elected by the approximately 7 to 1 majority remaining in their districts or states. The will of the 35% would have carried.

A Senate doesn't even have to be considered because, for example, in the U.S., an even smaller minority can control if they have majorities in the smaller States. If you want to prove that to yourself, just sum the populations of the 26 smallest States who could elect a majority in the Senate. Divide 51% of that number by the total population of the U.S. to see what percentage could control the Senate.

My conclusion is that a republic, far from protecting anyone's rights from a majority of 50%+1, actually creates the opportunity for a minority to rule over the majority.

Why is this? Many people are convinced that our status as a Republic gives us greater protection than a Democracy would. Why isn't that true?

Monarchy, Democracy, Republic, Oligarchy, and myriad other types of government are nothing but forms. What determines the rights and freedom of the individual is not the form but the substance of government. By substance I mean how much power the sovereign has over the people. It doesn’t matter if the sovereign is a king, a handful of people, a congress or parliament, or the people as a whole. Unless there is a bedrock law, a constitution that limits the power of the sovereign, the individual is not free to go his own way, but must run with the herd or be trampled. It was the substance, the limitations on the power of government set by our Constitution that made the individual citizen of the U.S. relatively free in that age long gone. Now that our Constitution has been swept aside, it matters little whether you call it a Democracy or a Republic. Our government is totalitarian. Today's collective “freedom,” even if a majority supports it, is a lie. Without individual freedom guaranteed by a written constitution, there is no freedom!

Fraudulent Political Spectrum

The media frequently carries stories of “Right-Wing Dictatorships” in various countries, usually those on our hit list. We also hear of “Right-Wing” extremist groups here that would like to set up a “Right-Wing Dictatorship” in this country. More often than not, these are groups who oppose the totalitarianism imposed by Washington and, like the “Right-Wing Dictators,” have made it to the government's hit list.

When we give it a little thought and analysis, the fraud becomes obvious. To speak of a "Right-Wing Dictatorship" is shear nonsense. The concept of the political spectrum presently being foisted on the public consists of Communism on the left, German National Socialism or Fascism on the right, and British/American Fabian Socialism in the center. All are slightly variant forms of socialism. All are rooted in the Hegelian philosophy that holds the individual worthless except when he functions as a cog in the gears of the machinery of the state. All of these socialisms are totalitarian. In effect, this spectrum gives us a choice of totalitarian government on the left, on the right, and in the center. Nowhere are we offered limited government based on libertarian principles as created by the “Bill of Rights” of our Constitution, nor the complete absence of government, which is anarchy.

When we speak of a "spectrum," we usually refer to a complete sequence or range of something, from one extreme to the other. So, if we place communism on the left, then we must also place socialism, fascism, unlimited monarchy, and all other forms of totalitarianism on the left. The opposite of total government must logically be no government at all, or, anarchy. Therefore, the extreme right of the political spectrum is anarchy. Obviously, to speak of a dictatorship of no government is ludicrous. There are as many "Right-Wing Dictatorships" in this world as there are unicorns.

However, if we desired, we could speak of a spectrum of totalitarianism. In this case, if we place communism (total ownership by government) on the left, socialism (ownership of key industries by government and control of everything else) in the middle, then we might place fascism (total control but no ownership by government) on the right. Thus, we could speak of a "Right-Wing Dictatorship," but only in the limited sense of a totalitarian spectrum.

The American people today are being given a choice of totalitarianisms by our “leaders” and the news media. We are being deceived into believing that the only opposition to communism is fascism, and to avoid either "extreme", we must accept "middle-of-the-road" Fabian Socialism. Nowhere are we given an option of any form of limited government. Nowhere are we given an option that restricts the power of the sovereign.  Nowhere are we given an option that reserves to the people the right to live their own lives and pursue their own interests free of constant interference from government.  Apparently,  freedom is not one of our options.

Our Constitution is Outmoded

This suggests another category – outright lies. The criminals who have usurped powers not granted by the Constitution frequently use this argument to justify those usurpations, even to argue for a Constitutional Convention to allow them to legalize their crimes after the fact.

They tell us that “times have changed” and we can no longer be bound by a Constitution written 200 years ago under different circumstances. The argument sounds plausible and many, if not most, will repeat it and think themselves wise. From this the lie has grown to almost mythological proportion, but is it true?

It is certainly true that “times have changed,” but the Constitution was not written to govern times. The Constitution was written to govern men, and men have not changed in 200 years, we have not changed in 2000 years. We still have among us those who would enslave their fellow man, who would use them to kill and maim and to be killed and maimed in wars fought solely for the aggrandizement of the wealth and power of those who rule us.

Yes, times have changed, but the need to put limitation on the greed and power lusts of men have not. We need to restore the Constitution to its proper place as the Supreme Law of the Land. If we do this, freedom will thrive and America will once again prosper and be a light of liberty for the world.

Return to TOC

No comments:

Post a Comment