its "to REPUBLIC for which it stands"! - XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source!

far_fast · 02-27-2007, 12:15 AM

Many great American statesmen have made the mistake of referring to our form of government as a Democracy. It was never intended to be a Democracy, but a democratic Republic. There are major differences. Still, ask any 100 people you meet on the street or any 100 students in America’s schools what form of government we have and you will likely get 100 responses of, “a Democracy.”

James Madison’s Federalist Paper #10 discusses the issue of Democracies. In it he states: “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. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions and their passions.” We can see from this that Mr. Madison would never have advocated a pure Democracy for his new nation.

In Federalist Paper #14 Madison wrote: “The true distinction between these forms...is, that in a Democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a Republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A Democracy consequently will be confined to a small spot. A Republic may be extended over a large region.”

Madison continues in Federalist Paper #14 to describe a Republic thusly: “The effect [of having a Republic over a Democracy] (is to) enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good, than if pronounced by the people themselves convened for the purpose.”

Essentially, a Democratic Republic is a limited government with enumerated powers (as specified in a Constitution) which is administered by persons elected by the people. These officials hold office at the pleasure of the electorate and must therefore strive to govern in a manner that is acceptable to the majority of voters.

The system breaks down when the electorate is misled by a biased news media or when special interests are able to manipulate the electoral process or, perhaps most significant, when the electorate no longer understands the working of the government and fails to exercise its proper oversight. For the system to function as our Founding Fathers envisioned it is necessary that the people understand the proper role of government as spelled out in our Constitution. It is not the function of government to ensure equality of outcomes. Any attempt to do so will eventually devolve into tyranny.

Concerning this tendency, in 1792, James Madison wrote in regards to property rights: “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort....This being the end of government....That is NOT a just government...nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has...is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

The socialistic nature of our present-day government would have been abhorrent to Madison and the other Founding Fathers. Government’s function should not be to level the people to an equal mediocrity, but to ensure a level playing field upon which added effort or superior talent results in increased reward. That is the philosophy that built America and made it great.

PilgrimChapter33 · 02-27-2007, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by far_fast

a chosen body of citizens, whose WISDOM may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and LOVE OF JUSTICE,

Ha! That's funny.... politicians with wisdom and a love of justice.....

Delija · 02-27-2007, 02:24 AM

Took about 10 seconds to find the source of the article. No surprise to see it was a very paranoid ultra reactionary place where environmentalists, teachers, bankers, the press, etc., are Marxist would-be dictators who dine on the blood, sweat and tears of the oppressed white Anglo-Saxon Protestants who's ancestors created this once proud country, but are now rolling over in their graves.

The usual. Just be afraid of all the monsters in our closets and under our beds.

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/free.html

Peace,
D.

rockerz71 · 02-27-2007, 04:52 AM

We might see more wisdom in our elected officials if the requirements for voting were set higher than simply turning 18 and not being in jail.

hacker15 · 02-27-2007, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockerz71

We might see more wisdom in our elected officials if the requirements for voting were set higher than simply turning 18 and not being in jail.

Wait a bit. With the Democrats in power, that last requirement may soon be history.

Once they add all those felons to the voting rolls, they will have an overwhelming majority.

After all, those folks are just "poor, oppressed victims of social injustice and discrimination - their behavior the results of socioeconomic class warfare". None of these people belong in jails in the first place. They would change their habits if we would just develop a kinder and gentler system to deal with their misguided behavior.....

shockwayve3000 · 02-27-2007, 06:32 AM

haven't taken the time to read all the above posts but could sum up what the point of the thread was, seen the movie "man of the year"? liked it....ol' mr. williams breaks down what a proper government official should be...

bd · 02-27-2007, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockerz71

We might see more wisdom in our elected officials if the requirements for voting were set higher than simply turning 18 and not being in jail.

So the men and women who are old enough to fight in our armed forces aren't qualified to vote?

bd

rockerz71 · 02-27-2007, 06:53 AM

I would assume that most of the people in our armed forces are there for a reason and have spent time learning about government and the state of affairs in the world, and probably make excellent voters. But no, being old enough isnt good enough. You could make a good argument if we were drafting them without giving them a vote, but we're not.

bd · 02-27-2007, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockerz71

I would assume that most of the people in our armed forces are there for a reason and have spent time learning about government and the state of affairs in the world, and probably make excellent voters. But no, being old enough isnt good enough. You could make a good argument if we were drafting them without giving them a vote, but we're not.

Would you say then it would be fair that military service would be required to vote at the age of 18?

That would disqualify many of the "privileged" young people.....

bd

rockerz71 · 02-27-2007, 09:11 AM

I don't think so but I think that it would be a better policy than letting everyone have an equal vote just because they were born here. It seemed to work well in Starship Troopers...

02-27-2007, 06:32 AM	#6
shockwayve3000 XDTalk 100 Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Hutchinson, MN Posts: 235	haven't taken the time to read all the above posts but could sum up what the point of the thread was, seen the movie "man of the year"? liked it....ol' mr. williams breaks down what a proper government official should be... __________________ Amendment II *A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.*

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-27-2007, 12:15 AM	#1
far_fast XDTalk 100 Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 478	its "to REPUBLIC for which it stands"! Many great American statesmen have made the mistake of referring to our form of government as a Democracy. It was never intended to be a Democracy, but a democratic Republic. There are major differences. Still, ask any 100 people you meet on the street or any 100 students in America’s schools what form of government we have and you will likely get 100 responses of, “a Democracy.” James Madison’s Federalist Paper #10 discusses the issue of Democracies. In it he states: “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. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions and their passions.” We can see from this that Mr. Madison would never have advocated a pure Democracy for his new nation. In Federalist Paper #14 Madison wrote: “The true distinction between these forms...is, that in a Democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a Republic they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A Democracy consequently will be confined to a small spot. A Republic may be extended over a large region.” Madison continues in Federalist Paper #14 to describe a Republic thusly: “The effect [of having a Republic over a Democracy] (is to) enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good, than if pronounced by the people themselves convened for the purpose.” Essentially, a Democratic Republic is a limited government with enumerated powers (as specified in a Constitution) which is administered by persons elected by the people. These officials hold office at the pleasure of the electorate and must therefore strive to govern in a manner that is acceptable to the majority of voters. The system breaks down when the electorate is misled by a biased news media or when special interests are able to manipulate the electoral process or, perhaps most significant, when the electorate no longer understands the working of the government and fails to exercise its proper oversight. For the system to function as our Founding Fathers envisioned it is necessary that the people understand the proper role of government as spelled out in our Constitution. It is not the function of government to ensure equality of outcomes. Any attempt to do so will eventually devolve into tyranny. Concerning this tendency, in 1792, James Madison wrote in regards to property rights: “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort....This being the end of government....That is NOT a just government...nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has...is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.” The socialistic nature of our present-day government would have been abhorrent to Madison and the other Founding Fathers. Government’s function should not be to level the people to an equal mediocrity, but to ensure a level playing field upon which added effort or superior talent results in increased reward. That is the philosophy that built America and made it great. __________________ He has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. He has never voted to raise congressional pay. He has never taken a government-paid junket. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against regulating the Internet. He voted against the Iraq war. Ron Paul in 08

02-27-2007, 04:52 AM	#4
rockerz71 XDTalk 3K Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Norcross, GA Posts: 3,510	We might see more wisdom in our elected officials if the requirements for voting were set higher than simply turning 18 and not being in jail.

02-27-2007, 06:53 AM	#8
rockerz71 XDTalk 3K Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Norcross, GA Posts: 3,510	I would assume that most of the people in our armed forces are there for a reason and have spent time learning about government and the state of affairs in the world, and probably make excellent voters. But no, being old enough isnt good enough. You could make a good argument if we were drafting them without giving them a vote, but we're not.

02-27-2007, 09:11 AM	#10
rockerz71 XDTalk 3K Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Norcross, GA Posts: 3,510	I don't think so but I think that it would be a better policy than letting everyone have an equal vote just because they were born here. It seemed to work well in Starship Troopers...