Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Democracy’

It’s the 4th of July! Why Is Democracy Destroying the World? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 4, 2020

In natural democracy, folks seek out others who agree with them and are willing, temporarily at least, to contribute time and/or money to their mutually agreed upon project(s). They don’t involve those who aren’t interested in their project(s) and certainly don’t expect the non-interested to pay for them.

In fact, as six-term U.S. Senator John McCain explains, it’s often those professional lobbyists who write the laws passed by the minions and, according to 26-term (52 year) U.S. Congressman John Conyers, the minions don’t even read them anyway – – –

“We don’t read most of the bills…that we pass.”

Do you suppose they’re passing too many? Rep. Conyers seems to think so. You will too if you keep reading.



History definitively proves that, when practiced by governments, democracy guarantees discord, discontent, disharmony, upheaval, chaos, and political disaster, often leading to totalitarianism.

But,” you may be thinking already, “How can that be? Isn’t democracy good? Doesn’t it prevent those things?

So you may be surprised to discover that more than half — 58% — of 4 million folks around the world surveyed in a Cambridge U. study are dissatisfied with democracy. That’s the highest level of discontent ever recorded in the survey’s 25 year history. Further, the level of dissatisfaction is particularly high in the U.S.A. and U.K.

The New Yorker calls the unprecedented number of world-wide upheavals, most in democracies, The Story of 2019.” They’re continuing in 2020.

For starters, there are upheavals in The Cradle of Democracy, Greece — and Bolivia, Ecuador, Iraq, Algeria, Haiti, Hong Kong, Columbia, Sudan, Brazil, Argentina. And more democracies on the brink. South Africa, Italy, and “authorities” aren’t too sure about India, etc.

Even Germany. And England, Scotland, Ireland, Whales and their people are divided over “BREXIT.”

These shakey democracies include assumed-to-be extremely stable countries such as Chile, Spain (Catalonia), Venezuela, Lebanon, even Israel.

Perhaps most surprising so far is France, with over a year — 60 weeks so far — of massive street demonstrations, beginning on Nov. 17, 2018 with the “Gilets Jaunes” or “Yellow Vests,” ignited by an increase in petrol tax and now re-upped by the Orange Vests, ignited by an attempted government re-form of French “Social Security.”

You can find a sporadically updated list with links here: UNCOMMON SENSE: Major Demonstrations and Riots .

In some ways, these uprisings are more focused continuations of the “Occupy” Movements that began in late 2011 and spread all around the world to at least 951 cities in 82 countries.

The”Occupy Wall Street” branch prompted U.S. President Barack Obama to quip to the bankers rather appropriately, My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.

And there’s this:

31% Think U.S. Civil War Likely Soon – Rasmussen Reports®

And that was all before the COVID-19 fiasco and the George Floyd related Black Lives Matter (BLM) demonstrations all around the world.

Maybe democracy isn’t such a good idea after all? And do the bankers have something to do with it? If so, what?

Let’s take a look – – –

Imagine “we” — that is all approximately 320 million Americans — went to Baskin & Robbins (or Ben and Jerry’s) but collectively we — even the folks who didn’t vote — or even eat — all had to buy and pay for the winning flavor of ice cream — vanilla perhaps. Even when less than half voted for it. Even when less than half voted at all. –L. Reichard White, What You Mean ‘We,’ Paleface?

That’s an example of direct democracy. On the other hand, we might elect a few folks to decide which flavor of ice cream we all get and how much we have to pay for it. That would be “representative democracy.”

Clearly such circumstances should be avoided if at all possible, especially because when the “majority rules,” there’s always a minority that loses. The more votes taken, the more losers.

There’s a third form of democracy which avoids that problem. It’s the one we want, use in our daily lives, and subconsciously ass-u-me when we hear the word. That’s probably because it’s almost certainly built-in to our genome. We’ll call that natural democracy.

In natural democracy, folks seek out others who agree with them and are willing, temporarily at least, to contribute time and/or money to their mutually agreed upon project(s). They don’t involve those who aren’t interested in their project(s) and certainly don’t expect the non-interested to pay for them.

Where natural democracy exists — as practiced by the original North American inhabitants and other “primitive” folks and in most of our day-to-day interactions, including voluntary exchanges in markets free of unwanted third party taxers and pseudo “regulators” — the folks who want vanilla get and pay for their own vanilla. Even the folks who want Bacon or Razzleberry can usually get what they want.

And the folks who aren’t hungry or don’t want ice cream don’t have to pay or even get off the recliner to vote.

On the other hand, some of them might voluntarily contribute to folks they feel need ice cream.

Who would want to do things any other way?

Because it’s so difficult, expensive, time-consuming and thus impractical to take universal votes on everything, direct democracy becomes unwieldly, even in relatively small groups.

As a result, despite certain psychological advantages, there are few groups of any size — and no countries — run by direct democracy.

When practiced in private groups, however — where participation is voluntary — both direct democracy and representative democracy approximate natural democracy and so can be useful.

And because you aren’t forced to belong to such private, voluntary groups — the PTA, Orthodox church, Mosque, the local paint-ball club, etc. — and those who do belong are free to easily leave them and/or stop paying dues, they stay mostly under control or else they disappear.

However, once you lose that ability to easily leave a group — and/or to stop paying dues — the membership loses that easy control and the organization eventually gets out of control.

Democracy or not, that “gets out of control” situation always applies to territorial state-based governments. That’s because, if you live in the geographical area they claim, those organizations make your membership mandatory, claim jurisdiction over you, and assert the right to extort your dues as “taxes.” This insight may be what promped U.S. founder Thomas Jefferson to pen, “The tree of liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike.

And so, lacking meaningful control, sooner or later territorial states begin to deteriorate towards discord, discontent, disharmony, upheaval, chaos, and political disaster, often leading to totalitarianism.

History — particularly 2019 and 2020 history as above and developing — shows this just happens a lot faster in democracies. Why do you suppose?

And yes, these days the banks — especially the Central Banks — are involved.

And yes, there’s an alternative form of government that can, temporarily at least, hold the bad territorial democracies at bey.

Our early American ancestors understood the dangers of democracy — and of majority rule in general — and weren’t shy in warning about them – – –

Mankind will in time discover that unbridled majorities are as tyrannical and cruel as unlimited despots.” –U.S. “Founding Father” John Adams

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. ME 2:163

U.S. “founding father” James Madison was more specific – – –

Hence it is that such 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, Federalist Paper 10:

That’s what happens when folks stop minding their own business and start minding someone else’s. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Brexiteers Don’t Want Democracy; They Want Freedom | The American Spectator

Posted by M. C. on January 31, 2020

American satirist H. L. Mencken was devastating in his critique of the common voter. “He not only doesn’t long for liberty, he is quite unable to stand it,” he wrote scornfully. “All else is affectation, delusion, empty words.” But Mencken never met a Brexiteer, for whom liberty is the sine qua non of his existence.

And by George, they’ve got it: The UK leaves the EU this weekend.
When the United Kingdom exits the European Union late on Friday, Brexit will be hailed as a victory for British democracy. Three times Britons voted to leave the EU and “take back control”: in June 2016, when the Leave campaign won at the EU referendum; in the general election the following June, when the vast majority of voters cast ballots for parties promising to fulfill the referendum will of the people (even though the Conservative party itself only achieved a minority government); and finally in December 2019 — the second general election in as many years — after months and months of Remainer parliamentary obstruction, Britons overwhelming elected Boris Johnson on the pledge to “get Brexit done.” Third time’s the charm.

But is this really a victory for democracy? Yes, on the face of it, if by democracy you mean one person, one vote. On the other hand, Britons were subjected, figuratively and literally, to months of their elected representatives in the House of Commons hell-bent on frustrating that self-same will, all in the name of parliamentary democracy.

The prime minister and no less than Elizabeth II, fulfilling their legitimate constitutional powers to prorogue Parliament, were vetoed by an unaccountable UK Supreme Court, “miraculously” imbued with the ability to augur that the Head of State and her First Minister were motivated by malevolent intent against democracy. Thus vetoed, Boris Johnson was forced to return to the Commons, cap in hand, to the repellent glee of Remainers. Brexiteers were rightfully outraged, while the establishment was unconvincingly nonplussed. They hear “the fury in your words, but not your words,” to summon up Shakespeare.

What is it about democracy that Brexiteers dislike? Most would never put the question so bluntly and, if queried, would proclaim themselves the most proud and patriotic democrats in all of England. Except … Why do politicians and more perniciously, “public” servants, put their interests above those whom they have sworn to serve?

Were justification required, we could put the blame on Edmund Burke, who infamously told his Bristol electors that MPs “owe you, not his industry only, but his judgment.” Furthermore, “he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion,” Burke protested.

Burke’s political nostrum, however, had its limits even in his own day, let alone in ours. In truth, we need go no further than to admit that public officials are usually no more “public-spirited” than the general run of the populace. Perhaps even less so.

Brexiteers who are fully committed to British independence don’t stop at limiting the power of Brussels. They’ll extend it to Westminster, too. Here they enjoy the support of the late Victorian political economist and (classical) Liberal MP, W. E. H. Lecky. “This increase of State power means a multiplication of restrictions,” Lecky wrote. “It means an increase of bureaucracy”— them again! — and a “constant increase of taxation, which is in reality a constant restriction of liberty.”

Lecky was an early opponent of the evils attending democracy and taxing powers, joining John C. Calhoun before him and Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek (as well as many others) after him. “No danger in representative government was deemed greater than that it should degenerate into a system of veiled confiscation,” Lecky observed, “one class voting the taxes which another class was compelled to pay.”

So while not disavowing democracy outright, few Brexiteers are happy with its results. Like most public disaffection, democratic dissatisfaction has been roiling under the surface of public discourse for decades. UK governments shifted from Conservative to Labour and back again, sometimes even comprising a coalition when circumstances warranted, but nothing seemed to change for the better. If anything, the state of British politics only worsened. Until Brexit came along.

American satirist H. L. Mencken was devastating in his critique of the common voter. “He not only doesn’t long for liberty, he is quite unable to stand it,” he wrote scornfully. “All else is affectation, delusion, empty words.” But Mencken never met a Brexiteer, for whom liberty is the sine qua non of his existence.

We may no longer need question why the Brexiteer has an uneasy relationship with democracy, seeing as how the burgeoning State robs him not only of his liberty but of his tax dollars, too. More to the point, however, is just how far Brexiteers are willing to go to regain both their freedom and their hard-won earnings. Is their outrage confined to Brussels, or are they willing to take on Westminster, too?

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Democracy and Tyranny – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on January 29, 2020

It’s Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties. The framers’ distrust is seen in the negative language of our Bill of Rights such as: Congress “shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied.” When we die and if at our next destination we see anything like a Bill of Rights, we know that we’re in hell because a Bill of Rights in heaven would suggest that God couldn’t be trusted.


During President Donald J. Trump’s impeachment trial, we’ll hear a lot of talk about our rules for governing. One frequent claim is that our nation is a democracy. If we’ve become a democracy, it would represent a deep betrayal of our founders, who saw democracy as another form of tyranny. In fact, the word democracy appears nowhere in our nation’s two most fundamental documents, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The founders laid the ground rules for a republic as written in the Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4, which guarantees “to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”

John Adams captured the essence of the difference between a democracy and republic when he said, “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” Contrast the framers’ vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of the government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

Here are a few quotations that demonstrate the contempt that our founders held for a democracy. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, wrote that in a pure democracy, “there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.”

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said that “in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” Alexander Hamilton agreed, saying: “We are now forming a republican government. (Liberty) is found not in “the extremes of democracy but in moderate governments. … If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy.”

John Adams reminded us: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

John Marshall, the highly respected fourth chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

Thomas Paine said, “A Democracy is the vilest form of Government there is.”

The framers gave us a Constitution replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One constitutional provision that has come in for recent criticism is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College as a means of deciding presidential elections. That means heavily populated states can’t run roughshod over small, less-populated states.

Were we to choose the president and vice president under a popular vote, the outcome of presidential races would always be decided by a few highly populated states, namely California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania, which contain 134.3 million people, or 41% of our population. Presidential candidates could safely ignore the interests of the citizens of Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Delaware. Why? They have only 5.58 million Americans, or 1.7% of the U.S. population. We would no longer be a government “of the people.” Instead, our government would be put in power by and accountable to the leaders and citizens of a few highly populated states. It would be the kind of tyranny the framers feared.

It’s Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties. The framers’ distrust is seen in the negative language of our Bill of Rights such as: Congress “shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied.” When we die and if at our next destination we see anything like a Bill of Rights, we know that we’re in hell because a Bill of Rights in heaven would suggest that God couldn’t be trusted.

Be seeing you





Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Some James Bovard Quotes

Posted by M. C. on January 4, 2020

As long as enough people can be frightened, then all people can be ruled. That is how it works in a democratic system and mass fear becomes the ticket to destroy rights across the board.

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.

America needs fewer laws, not more prisons.

Part of the reason that the government’s fear mongering is succeeding is because so many people are so ignorant, that it is easier for government to frighten people in submission.

It is unfortunate that Americans are no longer aware of what the constitution says and what their rights are. Because of that, we are often very passive about what happens when the government violates those rights.

It is one of the great tragedies of the US, that most learn most of what they know about the government from the government.

Today’s citizen is obliged to find his freedom only in the narrow ruts pre-approved by his bureaucratic overlords. “Risk-free liberty” is the ideal of the Welfare State: citizens are permitted only liberties which have been declawed, defanged, neutered, certified and wrapped in benevolent restrictions.

The only things government can do are regulate and redistribute, prohibit and penalize, confiscate and command. Are these the things that liberty is made of? Somebody else’s money and an endless list of Thou Shalt Nots?

Be seeing you

James Bovard



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Invention of Modern Slavery Called Democracy – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 27, 2019

“All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.”

~ H. L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy

Most believe that the days of kings and queens are behind us, and that such obvious despotic rule has no place in modern times. The commoners after all, had enough of such arrogance long ago, and were getting restless. The ruling class knew they had a problem, so they came up with an ingenious idea they called democracy in order to quell the tide of discontent evident among the people. The government retained power, but easily fooled the people into believing that with democracy, they would govern themselves. This was a fool’s game from the beginning.

Yes, the government decided on democracy, and the masses in their ignorance rejoiced. They had only changed the name of the beast, and accepted slavery in a different form without realizing the error of their ways. While most believed democracy meant freedom, quite the opposite was the case. Actually, democracy, or its evil cousin, a democratic republic, is a far greater danger to liberty long-term than is a monarchy. This is because of mass deception instead of clarity…

Since people today can vote to choose their rulers, they are prisoners to what they falsely believe is national rule, an impossible absurdity on its face. If given a choice, I would always choose a monarch over rule by a few or by a majority of millions of strangers, all with a multitude of agendas. A king at least is exposed. This insane concept of voting brings with it the ridiculous and false notion that self-rule is evident. Self-rule is freedom, but in a democracy, each individual has surrendered all sovereignty to an unknown entity called the nation-state…

Those who are fooled into believing that they are free when they are not would be better off knowing that freedom did not exist in the first place. In this country, when a child is born, he is automatically owned by the state, and therefore is the property of the state. This means he is subject to extortion for life. He is issued a birth certificate, and a claim is filed stating that he is a U.S. citizen. As a U.S. citizen, he is subject to theft by the state in the form of mandatory and forcible taxation. This is simply thievery where government takes what property its citizens earn for its own nefarious use. In addition, almost nothing is allowed without a permission slip in the form of licenses issued by the state. Virtually everything is regulated, and most behavior, regardless whether anyone is harmed or not, is restricted under the threat of prosecution, incarceration, or death…

The idea of democracy and democratic government is a scam. It is corruption at the highest level and the mortal enemy of freedom and liberty. Government is criminal, fraudulent, dishonest, sleazy, and indifferent to the plight of mankind. It is a worthless endeavor, and deserves no respect. It is and has always been a conspiracy of evil against life and love. I believe what Mencken said, and I will strive to be a dangerous man, and spread discontent far and wide for as long as I can.

Be seeing you

I was c_ck blocked by an act of Congress - Page 2 - AR15.COM


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Edward Snowden On Trump, Privacy, and Threats to Democracy: One Hour Interview on MSNBC – Blog

Posted by M. C. on September 25, 2019

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Myth of Democracy – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 6, 2019


“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” 
~ H.L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy

Democracy, simply put, means mob rule. In other words, it is the hoard of masses practicing collective stupidity. It is a worthless and dangerous effort that leaves the stench of failure wherever it is implemented.

The actual definition of the word democracy is government by the people, or a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. More clearly stated, as I mentioned earlier, mob rule.

The notion that “the people” have all the power, and are supreme over a government created through elections, is ludicrous on its face. That has never happened in history, and frankly, could not ever come to fruition, regardless of lofty ideology and delirious imagination.

The term democracy is bandied about as if it were a euphoric and magical state sought by all who claim to love freedom. This country after all is thought by the majority to be the greatest bastion of freedom on earth, so is this gross misconception about freedom surprising?

Most believe that all men seek and desire liberty, but could anything be more inaccurate? I would posit that mankind in general has never been satisfied or content with freedom. In truth, the opposite is the case, as the common man fears freedom more than slavery. The masses are not ever happy with real freedom, as freedom requires intelligence, responsibility, courage, and competence. Given that the human species is only comfortable in the herd, and wants to be coddled instead of being strong, liberty is anathema to natural human desire.

In America, these truths are evident throughout society, and are becoming more evident with each and every generation. Common people seek safety and contentment in the flock, without any eagerness to actually do the work necessary to sustain freedom. In fact, the masses are terrified of being free, and are very uncomfortable with the concept of liberty. It sounds good in theory, but in practice requires intellectual fortitude, courage, an enlightened soul, and wisdom, things that those in the group do not possess.

While it may be disturbing for most to face stark realities, there is a lower order of men among us, and they make up the bulk of society. I do not believe this to be arguable, nor do I use this knowledge as an excuse to discount the importance of the makeup of societies. There are obvious differences in people, and those differences can be subtle or severe, but in the end, few are enlightened. One factor that stands out among the masses is that the most important matters are decided by emotion, with fear as the driving force behind decision-making. This type of behavior breeds dependence, and is a recipe for the acceptance of control. When the majority lives with this attitude, freedom cannot exist.

This gives rise to the concept of popular will, and when the majority is relegated to decisions based on fear, emotion, envy, and safety, society as a whole is left with confusion, apathy, and tyrannical rule. This leads to despair, division, and chaos. This is where we are today in America.

One look around will expose the results of this societal disaster called democracy. We live in a society of victims, each group a minority within the whole of a communal mess. This is just one of the reasons that the electoral practices of the political system in which we live are so worthless and destructive of sanity. There are those of intellect who oppose this system, but they are a vast minority outcast by the mob. They are marginalized, cursed, threatened, and silenced, all due to the indoctrinated ignorance of the herd, and the masters they follow.

The collective group that makes up the majority relies on false worship of the state, thus the common attitude is one of allegiance, which is “the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government or of a subject to his or her sovereign.” This is religious in nature, and simply results in a compliant society under the control of the few. When most of any society falls to this level, all freedom has already disappeared, and this is exactly what democracy is meant to achieve. It is now the current state of affairs in this country, and only a monumental effort could alter the course we are on today.

In a system such as this, integrity is replaced by mediocrity, courage is replaced by cowardice, intelligence is replaced by ignorance, and compassion is replaced by indifference. This leaves only a road to perdition.

So is this hell called democracy our future? I cannot say, because I am only a messenger, and do not have the power to change humanity. No man is or should be in that position. But so long as democratic politics are considered a cure for our ills, so long as mobs vote to install trimmers to lord over them, and so long as men seek equality of outcomes, corruption and despair will continue.

The absurdity of it all is mind-boggling, but then the pleasure comes in the comedy that is the human condition.

Be seeing you

The Myth of The New Democratic Party… – CharliePeach🍑 – Medium


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Beginning of US Slavery – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 28, 2019

There are several challenges one can make about Hannah-Jones’ article, but I’m going to focus on the article’s most serious error, namely that the nation’s founders intended for us to be a democracy. That error is shared by too many Americans.


The New York Times has begun a major initiative, the “1619 Project,” to observe the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe American history so that slavery and the contributions of black Americans explain who we are as a nation. Nikole Hannah-Jones, staff writer for The New York Times Magazine wrote the lead article, “America Wasn’t a Democracy, Until Black Americans Made It One.” She writes, “Without the idealistic, strenuous and patriotic efforts of black Americans, our democracy today would most likely look very different — it might not be a democracy at all.”

There are several challenges one can make about Hannah-Jones’ article, but I’m going to focus on the article’s most serious error, namely that the nation’s founders intended for us to be a democracy. That error is shared by too many Americans. The word democracy appears nowhere in the two most fundamental founding documents of our nation — the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4, declares, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Think about it and ask yourself whether our Pledge of Allegiance says to “the democracy for which it stands” or to “the republic for which it stands.” Is Julia Ward Howe’s popular Civil War song titled “The Battle Hymn of the Democracy” or “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”?

The founders had utter contempt for democracy. James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist Paper No. 10, that in a pure democracy “there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, delegate Edmund Randolph said, “that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” John Adams said: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

The U.S. Constitution is replete with anti-majority rule, undemocratic provisions. One provision, heavily criticized, is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections, heavily populated states could not run roughshod over sparsely populated states. In order to amend the Constitution, it requires a two-thirds vote of both Houses, or two-thirds of state legislatures, to propose an amendment, and requires three-fourths of state legislatures for ratification. Part of the reason for having a bicameral Congress is that it places another obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The president, with a veto, can thwart the will of all 535 members of Congress. It takes a two-thirds vote, not just a majority, of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.

In addition to not understanding our Constitution, Hannah-Jones’ article, like in most discussions of black history, fails to acknowledge that black Americans have made the greatest gains, over some of the highest hurdles in the shortest span of time than any other racial group in mankind’s history. The evidence: If black Americans were thought of as a nation with our own gross domestic product, we’d rank among the 20 wealthiest nations. It was a black American, Gen. Colin Powell, who headed the world’s mightiest military. A few black Americans are among the world’s wealthiest. Black Americans are among the world’s most famous personalities.

The significance of this is that in 1865, neither a slave nor a slave owner would have believed that such progress would be possible in less than a century and a half, if ever. As such, it speaks to the intestinal fortitude of a people. Just as importantly, it speaks to the greatness of a nation within which such progress was possible, progress that would have been impossible anywhere else. The challenge before us is how those gains can be extended to a large percentage of black people for whom they appear elusive.

Be seeing you

Democracy is immoral and always leads to tyranny - War Is ...





Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Imagine if you could vote “none of the above” | The Daily Bell

Posted by M. C. on July 27, 2019

By Joe Jarvis

“Did not vote” won a landslide victory in the 2016 Presidential race.

If its votes had been counted, “did not vote” would have won 41 states and 471 of 538 electoral votes.

Inaction is still a choice. It means no candidate was able to inspire that person to go to the polls. Or perhaps the whole system seems stupid to them. Whatever the reason, their electoral voice is not being heard.

But it should be loud and clear. The people want a “none of the above” option when it comes to elections.

Maybe then elections would make a difference. Instead of abstaining, or voting for the lesser evil, you could choose no one.

If “no one” won, then the seat could either remain vacant or a new election could be called with all new candidates. This wouldn’t solve all the issues with democracy, but it would be a good start.

Well quit your dreaming, it will never happen. Politicians won’t pass laws that make their own reelection harder.

But another solution doesn’t require the approval of politicians. It could be used as a tool of the electorate to actually have its voice heard in electoral politics.

Referendum Candidates

A referendum is when the people vote directly on a policy issue, like legalizing marijuana for instance.

A Referendum Candidate would be a stand-in when that option is not available.

Referendum Candidates could:

1) Make voting for this third-party candidate a referendum on the other candidates, or the two-party system in general.

Instead of voting for the lesser evil, you can vote for the Referendum Candidate standing in as a “none of the above” option.

The RC (Referendum Candidate) could pledge to never show up for work, refuse a salary, and make sure that the seat is “empty” for the next election cycle.

Example: An election with two unpopular candidates, one from each major party. No one really wants to vote for either one, so they resort to voting for the lesser of two evils.

An RC would come in and vow to occupy the seat without doing anything for the next election cycle.

But they would have to be someone who is clearly not partisan, otherwise, it will simply bleed votes from one party or the other, as Libertarian or Green Party candidates tend to do.

The RC would be running more as a neutral arbiter of the two sides. Something along the lines of, “Look, both our choices are really terrible, let’s just sit this one out. Send a message to both parties that they better shape up, or neither one will get the seat.”

If the RC loses but captures, say 15% of the vote, they will make headlines that 15% of the electorate voted non-of-the-above. Next election cycle, more people will want to join the chorus of disapproval for the politicians, as long as the RC wasn’t a spoiler candidate.

2) An RC could run on a specific issue that your politicians have been ignoring, or that both mainstream politicians agree on.

But in order to make this work, RCs have to be single issue. Otherwise, they are no different than any other third-party candidate.

People need to feel their vote for the RC is making an actual statement, versus being thrown away. Then even if the RC doesn’t win, the message is clear. X percentage of voters agree strongly with the single position on which they ran. And that could influence the politician who does win to adopt that policy.

So to be a true Referendum Candidate, you would have to pledge to not vote on any matters that don’t relate to that single issue platform.

Example: A county in Washington state banned marijuana businesses, despite a state law that legalized them. Say both candidates for County Commissioner support the ban.

A Referendum Candidate could come in and run on the single issue: repealing the ban on marijuana retail in the county.

Who has partisan politics been excluding?

Republicans and Democrats have become so polarized that you actually have to be at least a little crazy to even run for office these days. How else could you align yourself with such rigid ideologies?

So perhaps Referendum Candidacies could actually give truly moderate, independent people a chance to re-enter the arena of politics.

Two more options for RCs:

1) Run as a true voice of the people. Let your constituents voice their opinion on every vote, and serve as a true proxy for the people. At least then the RC would be an actual representative.

But to be a truly non-partisan wise judge would be the ultimate respect for this position. Carefully weigh what the people tell you, and make the final decision–probably the way it was intended to be.

2) Design a platform from scratch. But this would require careful planning to avoid any of the buzzword issues that would reveal you as a mole of one side or the other. Explain the issue in new terms, and dissect why both the left and the right gets it wrong, or better yet, which tiny elements of the issues they get right.

But this won’t work if you are truly a lefty or righty, simply trying to repackage the same ideas. You must be genuinely different, and it would help to have no background of belonging to a party or publicly voicing partisan opinions…

Be seeing you

None of the Above 2016 Yard Sign | Zazzle



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

On the American Ideology

Posted by M. C. on July 5, 2019

Source: On the American Ideology

Translated from German by Ohad Osterreicher[1]

“We paint the world to ourselves as we like – until everything breaks down and no longer holds.”

We live in the age of the American Empire. It can be that this empire will someday crumble. In the foreseeable future, however, it is here to stay, not on account of its military strength but first and foremost because of its ideological power. For the American empire has achieved something truly remarkable: the internalization of its core belief system as an intellectual taboo into the minds of most people.

Granted, all states rest upon aggressive violence, and the USA is no exception. The United States as well do not hesitate to annihilate everyone who opposes their legislative despotism. Though the USA had thus far employed little actual violence to have its orders submissively followed because the overwhelming majority of the population and especially of the opinion-forming intellectuals have accepted the system of values and convictions which makes up the American empire.

Getting Libertarianism… Hans-Hermann Hoppe Check Amazon for Pricing. According to the official, USA approved belief system, we are all equally intelligent and reasonable people, who are confronted with the same “harsh reality” and are bound to the same facts and truths. Of course, it is true, that even in the age of the American empire, in the USA, people do not live in the best of all worlds. There are many more problems to be solved. Though with the American system of a democratic state, humanity has found the perfect institutional framework which makes the next step in the direction of a perfect world possible; and if only would the American system of democracy takeover worldwide, would the way to perfection be clear, smooth and free.

The single legitimate form of government is democracy. All other forms of government are worse, and any government is better than none. Democratic states like the USA are of the people, by the people and for the people. In democracies no one rules over the other; instead, the people rule over themselves and are thus free. Taxes in democratic states are therefore contributions and payments for governmentally provided services; accordingly, tax avoiders are thieves, who take without paying. To provide shelter for fleeing thieves is thus an act of aggression against the people, from whom they are trying to escape.

Though there are still other forms of governments around the world. There are monarchies, dictatorships, theocracies, and there are feudal landowners, tribes, and warlords. And for this reason, democratic states often must necessarily deal with non-democratic states. Eventually, all states must be converted to the American ideal, because only democracy allows for a peaceful and continual change for the better.

Democratic states like the USA and its European allies are inherently peaceful and do not wage war against each other. If they must fight any wars all at, then these are preventive wars of defense and liberation against aggressive and undemocratic states, that is, just wars. All countries and territories that are presently in war with or occupied by American troops or its European allies – Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libyan, Syrian, Sudan, Somalia and Yemen – were therefore guilty of aggression and their war waging and occupation on behalf of the democratic West were an act of self-defense and liberation. However, there is still much to be done. Especially Russia and China still pose a huge threat and must be liberated, in order to make the world finally safe.

Private property, markets, and profits are useful institutions, but a democratic state must ensure that with the appropriate legislation, private property and profits are acquired and used in a socially responsible manner and that markets function efficiently. Moreover, markets and profit-seeking entrepreneurs cannot produce public goods and are thus incapable of satisfying any social needs. And they cannot take care of the truly needy. Only the state can take care of social needs and the less fortunate. The state alone can, through the finance of public goods and aid to the poor, increase the public welfare, and diminish poverty and the number of the needy, if completely not eliminate.

Especially the state has to put the private vice of greed of the pursuit of profit under control. Greed and the pursuit of profit were the leading causes of the most recent large financial crisis. Reckless financiers generated an irrational exuberance among the public, which ultimately had to crash into reality. The market was wrecked, and only the state stood ready to save the day. Only the state, through appropriate regulation and supervision of the banking industry and financial markets, can prevent such a thing from happening again. Banks and companies went bankrupt, yet the state and its central banks held ground and protected the money and jobs of the workers.

Advised by the leading and best-paid economists in the world, states and especially the USA have discovered the causes of economic crises and realized that in order to get out of an economic mess, the people must simultaneously consume more as well as invest more. Every cent under the mattress is a cent withheld from consumption and investment, which in turn impairs future consumption and investment expenditure. In a recession, spending must first of all and under all circumstances be increased; and when the people do not spend enough of their own money, the state has to do it instead. Prudently, states have this option, for their central banks can produce any necessary liquidity. If billions of Dollars or Euros are not enough, then trillions will do; and if trillions do not meet the goal, then surely quadrillions will. Only massive state expenditure can prevent an otherwise unavoidable economic meltdown. In particular, unemployment is the result of low consumption: people who do not have enough money to buy consumer goods; this problem must be remedied by providing them with higher wages or higher unemployment benefits.

When the last financial crisis is finally overcome, the democratic state can and must devote itself once more to the really urgent remaining problems of humanity: the battle against inequality, the elimination of all unjust discrimination, and the control of the global environment and the global climate in particular.

In principle, all people are equal. Differences are only apparent, shallow and meaningless: some people are white, some brown, some black, some are big, others are small; some are fat and others thin; some are male, and some are female; some speak English and others Polish or Chinese as mother tongue. These are accidental human traits. It is a coincidence that some people possess these and some do not. But accidental traits like these have no influence whatsoever on and do not correlate with mental properties like motivation, time preference or intellectual abilities, and they do not contribute to the explanation of economic and social success, especially of income and wealth. Mental and psychic properties have no physical, biological or ethical basis and are limitlessly malleable. In this regard is everyone, except for a few pathological individual cases, equal to the other, and every nation has made in the course of history a contribution to civilization of equal value or would have done so, if only it would have gotten the same chance. Seemingly obvious differences are solely the result of different external circumstances and education. All differences in income and achievements between Whites, Asians, and Blacks, women and men, Latins, Anglos-Saxons and Thais as well as Christians, Hindus, Protestants, and Moslems would disappear, if only equality of opportunity would be established. If instead it will be discovered, that all these different accidental groups are unequally represented in and distributed across different levels of income, wealth, or professional status, some are richer and more successful than others, then this demonstrates unjust discrimination; and such discrimination must be counterbalanced through appropriate, targeted affirmative action on behalf of the state, in which the discriminators have to compensate the unjustly discriminated.

And the studies of the leading and best paid social scientists have clearly shown, who, above all, are the discriminators. The people in question are first and foremost white heterosexual males and the institution of the traditional, patriarchal organized family. It is, therefore, most notably this group of people and this institution which must compensate all other groups and apologize to all other forms of social organization.

But this would not do. The reparations to all disadvantaged, to all victims of inequality and discrimination, require likewise strong governmental support of multiculturalism. The highly developed and white male dominated countries of the Western world have obtained their wealth at the expense of the inhabitants of all other regions of the world and are caught in a disastrous and prejudiced particularism and nationalism. This situation lends itself to be overcome through the promotion and systematic incentivization of immigration of people from different, foreign countries and cultural environments, in order to ensure that the foreign immigrants could finally unleash their full human potential and simultaneously replace the Western parochialism with an authentic cultural diversity.

And with the victory over the disastrous particularism and nationalism through a systematic policy of multiculturalism is one finally able to turn to the crucial stride toward a solution to the undoubtedly biggest global, borderless and world-encompassing problem of climate change. Divergent particularistic and nationalistic interests have thus far lead to the fact that the production and the consumption of non-renewable energy sources were left mostly unregulated and worldwide uncoordinated. And that is why, as the leading and best-paid climate researchers have undoubtedly proven, is the whole globe threatened by unimaginable catastrophes: floods, strong and sudden rising sea levels and the emergence of fatal ecological disequilibria and instabilities. Only through a worldwide, concentrated action by all states, and ultimately the establishment of a supranational world government under the leadership of the USA and an enforced systematic regulation of any production and consumption activities, can this life-threatening danger be avoided. “The common good comes before the individual good” – this is above all, what the problem of climate change shows, and it is on the states and especially on the USA to permanently implement this principle.

Now, I tell you no secret when I admit that I hold this for a massive pile of rubbish, for complete nonsense and a highly dangerous one at that – but I also do not belong to the leading and best-paid economics and social scientists, and of climate research, I understand nothing at all! Except that I know, for example, that a global climate warming is no global problem, but one that affects people in different places of the globe entirely differently, a curse for one is a boon for the other, and insofar downright forbids a global solution.

Question: who are we to thank for this nonsense, whom does it benefit, and how is it that we are fed daily with it by the official media?

Here I want to hint at the answer only very briefly. It has two parts. One has to do with the institution of a state, and especially of a democratic state, with its occupants and representatives. And the other has to do with the intellectuals.

The state is a monopoly of legislation and law enforcement. In all conflicts, including those which it or its representatives are involved in, the state or people appointed by the state decide who is right or wrong. The predictable result is: the state is always right, in everything that does. Whether robbed, plundered, killed, lied to and threatened in the name of the state – or summarized in single sentence: when force is exerted on other people and violence is used against other persons – everything can and everything will be painted by it and its agents as just and assigned with another, deceptive and attractive name. This makes the institution of the state naturally attractive for all people who would like to rob, plunder, kill, lie, defraud other people, that is, use violence against others. Above all, it is these kinds of people who therefore try to infiltrate and take over the institution of the state. And if, as under democratic conditions, the entrance in and the occupation of the state stands free and open for everyone, that is, when it becomes a downright competition for votes between power thirsty crooks, then it is to expect, that the persons who will get to the top of the state are those who possess the greatest talent of rhetorically covering up their own predatory, treacherous and murderous intentions and selling these as good deeds to the voting masses. In short: The best demagogues, the best pied pipers, and corrupters get to the top.

Though when one looks at these democratically elected politicians and members of parliament, whom day by day impose their obvious megalomaniac will though law or decree on millions of people– can one only marvel. Because these people are as a rule not some kind of formidable, impressive alpha males or females, but an epitome of mediocracy or merely a collection of losers, idiots and failures, who have never in their entire life produced a product or rendered a service which someone would have voluntarily bought with his own money.

And faced with these tragic figures, who grandiosely claim to be “our” highest representatives, the question then arises, whether such light-calibrated people are even in the position of conceiving by themselves the entire nonsense which they tell us every day, and furthermore, whether they have what it takes to come up with the diverse justifications and rationalizations for this nonsense which they everywhere feed us.

There one surely has a considerable doubt! And that leads me directly to the second part of my answer to the question of the originators and beneficiaries of the above described “politically correct” view of the world and the nature of things: the intellectuals, or put more precisely, those intellectuals who occupy themselves with social, economic and philosophical question and problems, and their connection to the state and its leaders.

As in the case of the politicians, so is there in the case of the intellectuals hardly a person who through her intellectual work, her writings and speeches, for these are what she produces, that could secure a comfortable livelihood and income. The market demand for such products is low and is furthermore subject to large deviations. Only a small number of intellectuals would succeed in making a profession out of their writings and speeches. The vast majority of actual or alleged intellectuals would be advised to conduct their scientific interests as a mere inner vocation and to earn their livelihood elsewhere, by the practice of a normal civilian profession. But this naturally contradicts the feeling of self-esteem of an intellectual, and all those who view themselves as such. The intellectuals are convinced of the importance and value of their work like no other group and are accordingly resentful when the alleged appropriate high social recognition fails to materialize.

What is then left for them instead? They are usually not suitable for politics, for they are typically too honest and wonkish, too shy, awkward, introverted and particularly antisocial. And for this reason, they mostly lack the desire for power, which is precisely what makes a politician.

But the intellectuals are naturally smart enough to know that even if they are not made to be politicians, they nevertheless need the politicians to get the money required for a comfortable living. And they obviously also know what they must offer as a service in return so to get the biggest possible cut of their pillage: namely well-sounding justifications for continually expanding the powers of the state, and “bold” visions and programs with noble, well-intentioned goals, for example, that of “equality of all people” which cannot ever be achieved, no one can ever achieve, but precisely because of this one never has to give up on, but can repetitively revive and ceaselessly renew.

And so it comes to an unholy alliance: that of the early, monarchical times between church and crown, and that of today, in the American age, between democratic politicians and intellectuals. The result? Never before were there so many politicians and above all so many alleged intellectuals as well who live and indulge in luxuries at the expanse of an ever-decreasing number of productive persons. And never before, in order to stay among the intellectuals, have the numerous and large universities, as the publicly funded and supported citadels of intellectual power and influence and the breeding ground of future politicians and intellectuals, produced so much horrific intellectual nonsense and contributed to the misleading of the public as in our times.

In light of this fact, what can one do? I am afraid that not much – except to repetitively and openly call out the whole hoax. This means that for one thing, to recognize and describe the politicians for what they really are: a band of liars, crooks, robbers, murderers, and associates to murder; and treat them accordingly with contempt, scorn, and ridicule. But also their intellectual masterminds and assistants, without whom the politicians could never carry out their evil work, must be targeted, and as the first step toward a return to normalcy and sound human understanding, to common sense, it is imperative to push for the financial draining of the universities. Not only should all centers for Blacks, Latins, women, gender, and Queer-studies, and everything else that there is of this then unheard of exotica, be closed, but also the social science departments altogether, starting with political science and history, through sociology and up to economics and social and economic statistics (whose statistics also serve the goals of uncovering ever new “inequalities” and to call for redistribution or reeducation!) And likewise should the profession of the academic literary studies and criticism and, as much as it hurt me to say, the profession of the academic philosophers as well be thinned out. And the people who believe, that they know how one controls the climate, one should issue them a certificate of illness and send them for treatment in a psychiatric clinic. Democracy – The God Th… Hans-Hermann Hoppe Best Price: $22.89 Buy New $35.73 (as of 08:45 EDT – Details)

This does not mean that one should have anything in principle against the work of political scientists, sociologists, economists, statisticians, literary critics, philosophers or climate scientists, or wish that they should cease to exist. Without a doubt, there will be people who genuinely occupy themselves with questions and problems of all disciplines. And that is good and necessary. But surely would the number of such scientists be much smaller. But quantity is not the same as quality, and the reduction in the number of tax-funded social scientists of all kinds is by no means tantamount to an intellectual descent. Completely the opposite. Freed from the intellectual pollution which is currently produced by the universities, appear once more the possibility of a rise of a class of new and better intellectuals, characterized by firm stance and authentic understanding of reality.

Yet all of this lies, if it is even possible to arrive at, in the far future. But thank god one need not wait for it any longer. For in the niches of the present madhouse, totally apart from today’s universities and schools and the ongoing charade, there is, in any case in Vienna, around Vienna, and all around Vienna in the German-speaking region, still – or even better: once more – a place in which though one cannot earn any professional credentials or governmental certificates, but in which man can acquire real education and learn and practice critical thought and argumentation: Rahim’s Scholarium.

[1] Ohad Osterreicher is studying undergraduate economics at the University of Bayreuth, Germany.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »