 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Straight from the horses mouth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6tXyMlbdzA
That is not democracy, that is organized crime. If people are driven by a desire to destroy other people then the accurate word for that guiding principle is CRIME not DEMOCRACY.
Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcqp3n9mXZE
It is very unfortunate that so many people are confused about criminals and criminal behavior BECAUSE the criminals use words that sound like something remotely good.
If a criminal calls what they are doing a vote, then the fools vote?
They don't vote, they become the proverbial angry mob. The are driven by false information and either the false information is an honest error, or the false information is a deliberate, willful, deception.
The word Democracy is well reported with accurate meanings from the works of Thomas Paine and many other sources. Democracy is one type of process that is created so as to afford people a competitive option in opposition to Rule by Man.
If there is opposition to Rule by Man, then that opposition is Democracy, or Anarchy, or a Constitutional Republic, or many Constitutional Republics joined into a Voluntary Federation, or Trial by Jury, or Rule of Law, or Natural Law, or God's Law.
One Man (dictator, criminal, tyrant, Organized Crime Don, Organized crime Boss, the worst of the worst evil criminals taking over the top of the Organized Crime Pyramid) is One Monopoly Form of so called Government, when even the word Government is a False Front because One Man Ruling everyone else is Crime, plain and simple Crime, not Government.
So the Criminals convince their victims that the victims working a NON-one man, rule by man, crimes spree, or Government (non-crime), or Democracy (non-crime), or Constitutional Republics joined into a Voluntary Federation (non-crime), or Trial by Jury (non-crime), or whatever is a NON-ONE MAN RULER CRIME SPREE, is what they the criminals do; meaning: bait and switch; meaning, "hey you victims working effectively against crime", "hey you, we criminals claim that we are working effectively against crime too," and that is then demonstrably false. While that criminal claim is false the work done by criminals upon victims INCLUDES the creation and maintenance of that FALSE FRONT: paid for by the loot stolen from the victims who produce anything worth stealing, including moral souls.
The Criminals convince the Victims that the Criminals are the Government, and the Victims believe the lie, and the victims fail to question the lie, and perpetual crime is passed from generation to generation until everyone is turned into beasts eating each other like Rats on the sinking ship the RATS sink BECAUSE word magic works?
I speak, and write, plain English and people have the audacity to blame me for failing to communicate; while they call obvious crimes with False words like Democracy?
So the Republicans are out to get the Democrats because the Republicans blame the Democrats for all the crimes perpetrated by the angry mobs that are fomented into fighting each other by people casting spells with words? Republicans point to the Democrats and yell lies at them, or half truths, so as to condemn the democrats, every one of them, all of them, all at once, because that is how things are done in our so called government?
All the Democrats are out to get all the Republicans because all the Democrats are told that a Republic is nothing but a bunch of Capitalists who are out to shake everyone down and take their last penny, just so that the Capitalists can buy another yacht in another Capitalists controlled Vacation Resort where the rich get richer and the poor grow every more destitute?
All the while it is the Criminals NOT THE GOVERNMENT spreading these lies to ALL sides, not just Democrats and Republicans?
So the Old Man speaks about an Angry Mob fomented into a criminal gang, ever ready to do malice to anyone that they summarily find guilty before investigation.
And the same Old Man can't see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcqp3n9mXZE
What is that?
How about asking someone to offer a defense against wild accusations made during the fomenting of an angry mob - if that is what that is in fact (prima facie)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HkSAewoESg
And the layers of the lies go even deeper?
Why call those so called BLM people anything other than Criminals when they begin perpetrating crimes? Why call criminals "The FEDS"?
In Trial by Jury, the accuser is by Natural Law going to call the accused "criminals," and then a cooler head, a tribunal, a jury, a group and not ONE MAN, a disinterested, no conflict of interest group, no special interest group, no for-profit-of-a-few-at-the-expense-of-the-many group, no unclean hands group, no legal fiction limited liability group, no non-arms length group, PRESUMES THE ACCUSED TO BE INNOCENT, during discovery of the facts, discovery of the law, and judgement, and punishment (if any), after exhausting all possible remedies offered voluntarily to the people in conflict.
Is there a crime?
Who is the victim, or victims?
Can the victims be afforded due process, so as to defend the victim from further injury, and so as to repair the damage done if possible?
Who is accused, presumed to be innocent, and can negotiations be commenced in the effort to resolve the matter?
This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcqp3n9mXZE
What is that?
Is that not the following?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6tXyMlbdzA
Democracy:
http://mises.org/document/3516/The-Complete-Writings-of-Thomas-Paine-Vol...
quote
___________________________________
Though the ancient governments present to us a miserable picture of the condition of man, there is one which above all others exempts itself from the general description. I mean the democracy of the Athenians. We see more to admire, and less to condemn, in that great, extraordinary people, than in any thing which history affords.
Mr. Burke is so little acquainted with constituent principles of government, that he confounds democracy and representation together. Representation was a thing unknown in the ancient democracies. In those the mass of the people met and enacted laws (grammatically speaking) in the first person. [note: look up the word sortition for a possible greater understanding of this time period]
Simple democracy was no other than the common hall of the ancients. It signifies the form, as well as the public principle of the government. As these democracies increased in population, and the territory extended, the simple democratical form became unwieldy and impracticable; and as the system of representation was not known, the consequence was, they either degenerated convulsively into monarchies, or became absorbed into such as then existed.
Had the system of representation been then understood, as it now is, there is no reason to believe that those forms of government, now called monarchical and aristocratical, would ever have taken place. It was the want of some method to consolidate the parts of society, after it became too populous, and too extensive for the simple democratical form, and also the lax and solitary condition of shepherds and herdsmen in other parts of the world, that afforded opportunities to those unnatural modes of government to begin.
As it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the subject of government has been thrown, I shall proceed to remark on some others.
It has always been the political craft of courtiers and court-governments, to abuse something which they called republicanism; but what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain. Let us examine a little into this case.
The only forms of government are, the democratical, the aristocratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representative.
What is called a republic, is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter, or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, res-publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing.
It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.
Every government that does not act on the principle of a republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it.
Various forms of government have affected to style themselves a republic. Poland calls itself a republic, which is an hereditary aristocracy, with what is called an elective monarchy. Holland calls itself a republic which is chiefly aristocratical, with an hereditary stadtholdership.
But the government of America, which is wholly on the system of representation, is the only real republic in character and practise, that now exists. Its government has no other object than the public business of the nation, and therefore it is properly a republic; and the Americans have taken care that this, and no other, shall always be the object of the government, by their rejecting everything hereditary, and establishing government on the system of representation only.
Those who have said that a republic is not a form of government calculated for countries of great extent, mistook, in the first place, the business of a government for a form of government; for the res-publica equally appertains to every extent of territory and population. And, in the second place, if they meant any thing with respect to form, it was the simple democratical form, such as was the mode of government in the ancient democracies, in which there was no representation. The case therefore, is not, that a republic cannot be extensive, but that it cannot be extensive on the simple democratical form; and the question naturally presents itself, What is the best form of government for conducting the RES-PUBLICA, or the PUBLIC BUSINESS of a nation, after it becomes too extensive and populous for the simple democratical form?
It cannot be monarchy, because monarchy is subject to an objection of the same amount to which the simple democratical form was subject.
It is possible that an individual may lay down a system of principles, on which government shall be constitutionally established to any extent of territory. This is no more than an operation of the mind, acting by its own powers. But the practise upon those principles, as applying to the various and numerous circumstances of a nation, its agriculture, manufacture, trade, commerce, etc., requires a knowledge of a different kind, and which can be had only from the various parts of society.
It is an assemblage of practical knowledge, which no one individual can possess; and therefore the monarchical form is as much limited, in useful practise, from the incompetency of knowledge, as was the democratical form, from the multiplying of population. The one degenerates, by extension, into confusion; the other, into ignorance and incapacity, of which all the great monarchies are an evidence. The monarchical form, therefore, could not be a substitute for the democratical, because it has equal inconveniences.
Much less could it when made hereditary. This is the most effectual of all forms to preclude knowledge. Neither could the high democratical mind have voluntarily yielded itself to be governed by children and idiots, and all the motley insignificance of character, which attends such a mere animal system, the disgrace and the reproach of reason and of man.
As to the aristocratical form, it has the same vices and defects with the monarchical, except that the chance of abilities is better from the proportion of numbers, but there is still no security for the right use and application of them.
Referring, then, to the original simple democracy, it affords the true data from which government on a large scale can begin. It is incapable of extension, not from its principle, but from the inconvenience of its form; and monarchy and aristocracy, from their incapacity. Retaining, then, democracy as the ground, and rejecting the corrupt systems of monarchy and aristocracy, the representative system naturally presents itself; remedying at once the defects of the simple democracy as to form, and the incapacity of the other two with respect to knowledge.
Simple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature.
It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy. It has fixed the form by a scale parallel in all cases to the extent of the principle. What Athens was in miniature, America will be in magnitude. The one was the wonder of the ancient world; the other is becoming the admiration and model of the present. It is the easiest of all the forms of government to be understood, and the most eligible in practise; and excludes at once the ignorance and insecurity of the hereditary mode, and the inconvenience of the simple democracy.
It is impossible to conceive a system of government capable of acting over such an extent of territory, and such a circle of interests, as is immediately produced by the operation of representation. France, great and popular as it is, is but a spot in the capaciousness of the system. It adapts itself to all possible cases. It is preferable to simple democracy even in small territories. Athens, by representation, would have outrivaled her own democracy.
That which is called government, or rather that which we ought to conceive government to be, is no more than some common center, in which all the parts of society unite. This cannot be accomplished by any method so conducive to the various interests of the community, as by the representative system.
It concentrates the knowledge necessary to the interests of the parts, and of the whole. It places government in a state of constant maturity. It is, as has been already observed, never young, never old. It is subject neither to nonage, nor dotage.
____________________________________________
UNFORTUNATELY
The concept appears to be incomplete as the Republic form is ALSO outgrown in size, custom, distance, and connectivity which then was in need of a solution, which was found in Federation.
Explained here:
http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolution...
quote________________________
Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.
________________________________
Meaning: The NON RULE BY MAN solution (democracy) could not expand to larger areas without representation working in the form of a Public Good ("collectivism"?), but even said representative democracy FORM outgrew in size to then require another layer, of the same NON RULE BY MAN solution, which was solved with FEDERALISM.
FEDERALISM worked to retain the VOLUNTARY character of VOLUNTARY (free market?) government.
So therein you have the good of "collectivism/socialism/common public good" and "capitalism/free markets/the good of the individual," all rolled up into a working whole SO LONG AS trial by jury remained as a means by which the people defending each other from any claim of false authority by anyone in time and place.