By: Gary D. Barnett
As I perused writings this morning, I saw another article by someone I respect claiming that America is not a democracy, and that if it became a democracy, this “would be a deep betrayal of our founders.” This position is taken from a stance that ignores the existence of fact, and that incorrectly assumes a great difference in what is a democracy as opposed to a republic. The differences are not so far apart as normally thought by those who tend to support this democratic governing system.
The notion that a republic is vastly different than a democracy fails the test of reality, because the end result of both are bound to lead to toatal tyranny, as has obviously happened in this country. Lysander Spooner’s opinion of the Constitution simply and succinctly sums up the false notion that a republic is valid. He stated:
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
~ Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority
As stated in the article referrenced above: “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republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.”
There is much contradiction in the passage above. This assumes that there is a great difference in rule of the majority through elected representatives, and rule by the majority through elected representatives under a constitution. This is based on the notion that a constitution limits government power when the majority vote through elected representatives, and that majority vote through elected representatives without a constitution does not. Neither of these limits government power, and no constitution that has ever existed limited government power and brought or protected freedom.
Mob rule is mob rule, regardless of whether a constitution exists or not, even though the mob has no power whatsoever in this country. Saying that democracy means a majority vote determines outcome, and that a republic means a majority vote also determines outcome, except under a constitution, is not any relevant distinction. Government is never the majority, it is a separate and ruling arm over the majority in both cases. What is lost in this argument is that any constitution is nothing more than a political document drafted of course by politicians. It is in essence, a set of rules that government creates, that is said to limit those that created it in the first place, instead of limiting the individual citizen. Have any ever read Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution? Does anyone actually believe this nonsense? Is not the law exactly what the government determines it to be? Does anyone in the United States have a say in what laws are passed, implemented, and enforced by government, constitution or not?
Before any begin an argument that the “right” to vote is the determining factor in order to create liberty, please refrain from such idiocy. Constitutions do not give rights, do not restrict government, do not protect the individual, and have absolutely nothing to do with honesty or restraint.
Let’s put this into true perspective. 168 countries and 13 territories have a constitution. A handful of notable countries with constitutions include Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, India, and Yemen.
Claiming that having a constitution in this country that “guarantees” a “republic” changes the definition of rule to one of liberty instead of tyranny, is not only shortsighted, but idiotic when any reality is examined. Government by definition is force. Force eliminates all freedom, so government alone is destined to be tyrannical whether a constitution exists or not. All freedom is based on the individual, it is based on total non-aggression, and it is based on natural rights, not some illegitimate piece of paper claiming to protect all rights through corrupt representatives.
If government exists, freedom does not!
Copyright © 2020 GaryDBarnett.com