My first article on “To Hell With Democracy” should be read as preface to this article. The original “To Hell” article can be found at: http://adask.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/to-hell-with-democracy/#more-2807
What follows began as my response to one reader’s comment on the original article. This response grew to a point where I think it deserves to be published as a second article–To Hell With Democracy part II. It explains the spiritual principles that distinguish the “republican form of government” mandated by our constitutions from the “democracy” that we currently “enjoy”.
To understand “democracy,” you have to recognize the difference between “democratic PROCESS” (where people get to vote on SOME issues) and “democracy”–a pure system of government wherein the collective is deemed to be the sole sovereign.
The distinction is subtle, but it runs something like this:
The “republican form of government” recognizes the following lawform or hierarchy of authority:
1) God of the Bible;
2) We the People as Individual sovereigns; and
3) governments of the States of the Union as the People’s servants/fiduciaries.
Under the republican form, the highest law is the law of the #1 authority in the hierarchy. That is, the highest law in the republican form is GOD’s law. Under the republican form, we can’t lawfully do that which is contrary to God’s law. This is part of the basis for “limited government”.
However, God’s law doesn’t control every aspect of human life. For example, God’s law said nothing about zoning regulations, or how many rodent hairs can be included in an ounce of peanut butter, or how fast you can drive in a school zone. For those kinds of “secular” questions that God’s law did not directly address, the sovereign individuals (We the People) can decide those secular issues by voting (use democratic PROCESS). For example, since God said nothing about how fast you can drive in a school zone, We the People can vote to decide whether we should be limited to driving 15MPH or 20 MPH in a school zone.
Voting (democratic process) does not necessarily indicate that the nature of a particular lawform is that of a democracy. It’s easy to imagine that in an “aristocracy,” for example, that the few, elite members of that form of government decide their differences by voting–but that voting process does not turn the aristocractic form of government into a democracy.
The essential feature of the democracy is the collective as the only sovereign. If there is no collective, there is no democracy–but the individual sovereigns might still sometimes resort to voting (democratic process) to decide certain issues.
The republican form of government is consistent with the New Testament’s two fundamental “commandments”: 1) Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, with all thy strength, with all thy soul; and 2) love thy neighbor as thyself.
Whenever an issue is controlled by God’s law, the members of the republican form must demonstrate that they “love the LORD” above all else by doing God’s will. There is no choice. God is the ultimate sovereign, so we must obey the ultimate sovereign’s law.
However, when an issue (speed limits in school zones) is not controlled by God’s law, then we must “love (respect) our neighbor as ourself”. In other words, your neighbor’s opinion (as a man made in God’s image, endowed by God with certain unalienable Rights and therefore a sovereign) must be respected and valued as every bit as highly as your own opinion. If there are 100 or 100 million such sovereigns expressing an opinion on a particular secular issue that does not directly implicate God’s law, and if over half of those sovereigns vote to decide that issue in a particular way, that majority will prevail–but as individual sovereigns–not as a mechanism to indicate the will of a “collective”. By “loving thy neighbor as thyself,” we can vote on those issues that are purely secular without forfeiting our status as individual sovereigns.
In a democracy, the lawform/hierarchy of authority looks something like this:
1) We the People–in the capacity of a single COLLECTIVE/sovereign;
2) government that enforces the will of the collective/sovereign as discovered through the collective’s most recent vote;
3) We the People–in the capacity of individual SUBJECTS who have no defense against the will of the collective/sovereign or the powers of government agencies.
Note that in a democracy, there is no place for God in the hierarchy of authorities. In a democracy, there is no reliance on God. This is somewhat consistent with today’s government’s insistence on the “separation of church and State”. The democracy demands that the authority of God be unrecognized in the hierarchy of authorities.
Yes, the people in a democracy are free to believe in God and may vote to include references to God on their currency or wherever. But the people are equally free to vote to include references to Santa Claus on their currency (“IN SANTA WE TRUST,” hmm?).
God is not included in the the hierarchy of authority for a democracy. Therefore, in the godless democracy, there is no Godly limit on what the people can vote for or against. Democracy is purely MAN’s law. If we want to abort all of our children, all we need to do is take a vote. If the majority agrees, we can. If the majority votes to kill all the kids (or the elderly . . . or all the blacks . . . or all the whites), the majority’s vote will be presumed to express the will of the collective/sovereign–and whichever group is designated to be killed, robbed or subjected to hard labor will be killed, robbed or so subjected. The minority (including the ultimate minority–individual men or women) have no rights against the will of the collective as expressed by the majority vote.
Democracy (man’s law) and God’s law are anathema. The two AUTHORITIES cannot peacefully coexist. One or the other must prevail. Again, consider that old joke definition of democracy: two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. If God granted certain unalienable Rights to the sheep, the wolves–no matter how numerous–can’t vote to eat that sheep. So long as God’s presence and authority is recognized, the democracy must fail. I.e., voting becomes an absolute waste of time since no number of men’s votes can overcome the authority of God’s law. The only way democracy can work is if the political system (hierarchy of authorities) denies and does not include any authority attributed to God.
The first of the two commandments in the New Testament (you shall love the LORD with all thy strength, etc.) lays the foundation for a pure THEOCRACY. Many Muslim nations are currently run as a pure theocracy. The will of Allah is deemed to control everything–right down to the speed limits in school zones. Under the pretext of theocracy, those Muslim nations really have something like an aristocracy of muslim mullahs (priests) who decide all secular issues. How fast can you drive in a Muslim school zone? Only the mullahs/aristocrats can decide.
In it’s purest form, the second commandment of the New Testament (love/respect thy neighbor as thyself) lays the foundation for a pure, secular democracy. IF that “commandment” stood ALL BY ITSELF, it would not recognize the superior authority of God. Therefore, it would also deny the existence of any God-given, unalienable Rights and the consequent existence of any individual sovereignty. If we had a system of government consistentonly with “love thy neighbor as thyself,” the result would be a democracy where all members were equal subjects under a single sovereign: the democracy/society/economy/collective.
The genius of the republican form of government is that it is consistent with the New Testament’s two commandments in that:
1) it recognizes God’s supreme authority (sovereignty) in those matters that God’s law addresses; and
2) it recognizes man’s individual sovereignty to decide among themselves how to deal with secular issues that don’t implicate God’s law.
As the Christ once advised, render unto God that which is God’s and render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. The New Testament’s two commandments and the republican form of government do exactly that.
The republican form is not merely political/secular. It embraces both the spiritual (God’s law) and the secular (man’s law) with the clear understanding that, in the event of conflict, God’s law is superior. From that perspective (and from being consistent with the two New Testament “commandments”), the republican form of government is arguably the single, most Christian form of earthly government. It’s not perfect–no earthly government understood and enforced entirely by man could be. But it’s so much better than anything else that it should be fought for as not only as our only constitutional form of State government, but as a “Christian” government.
Our government, of course, hates the republican form because it alleges the existence of God, presumes the superior sovereignty of God and individual men over the government, and renders government as our public servantrather than our de facto master. Consistent with Satan’s alleged remark that it’s better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven, our government doesn’t want to serve. Government wants to rule. Therefore, from government’s perspective, the republican form had to be replaced by a democracy.
The reason government subjected us to a democracy is that in the democracy, the people are not individual sovereigns. So long as the people lose the presumption of their God-given, individual sovereignty, the only sovereign is deemed to be some fictional “collective,” then the government (which is deemed to represent the collective/sovereign) can do just about anything it can get away with.
Of course, if gov-co goes too far in a particular instance (say, using x-ray radiation and intimate groping to determine who can board an airplane) and thereby causes the people to get so mad that some of them actually turn off the TV, get up off the couch to vote and express their “collective” will, the government will relent and obey the will of the majority–until that majority goes back to their TV, gets comfortable on the couch, and is essentially narcotized into not paying attention to government’s actions. Then, government will again do exactly as government wants.
The key to making democracy work (from the government’s perspective) is to keep the people ignorant and apathetic. So long as that’s true, government can molest 3-year old girls with impunity (immunity) because government is deemed to 1) represent and enforce the will of the collective-sovereign; and 2) the individual members of the democracy (like the 3-year old girl being “patted down” and “felt up” by a TSA employee) have no right to object.
Government’s authority over the people exactly describes the world in which we find ourselves today. Is that authority constitutional? No. We the People–as individual sovereigns–are declared by the Constitution to be the sovereigns and government, therefore, our public servant. Under the guise of the New Deal–but without constitutional authority–our federal government subtly changed the principles of our government by declaring that We the People are still “sovereign”–but sovereign as a collective rather than as individuals. Virtually no private American recognized, understood and objected to this change. However, by means of that subtle twist of fundamental principles, government presumes to rule rather than serve.
And therefore, I again say, “To Hell with democracy”.
And why not? Democracy is not a godly form of government. Since democracy does not recognize the supreme authority of our Father YHWH Elohiym, democracy has no aspirations of “going to heaven” since heaven cannot exist as a viable concept in democracy. Thus, democracy can “go to Hell,” because that’s where it ultimately belongs.
This comparison between the “republican form of government” and “democracy” is subtle and, as is usual with governmental treason, not merely hard to understand, but hard to believe. But in essence, it boils down to this: in the republican form, we recognize the ultimate authority of God, that each of us is a sovereign and our limited government is our servant; in the democracy, we deny the existence of God and we are therefore subject to the unlimited government as our master.
Which lawform to you prefer?
mAximo
November 26, 2010 at 11:00 AM
The 2nd NT commandment would likely prescribe a democracy if it were in the
plural; but because it isn’t, it recognises the individual’s unalienable
rights as personal property upon which one is not to trespass. Even so, while
the most Christian form of gov’t is a republic, a republic isn’t necessarily
Christian. The basic substance of a 100% pure republic is 100% consensus
among the governed as under the Articles with regard to changing them: any
State could secede if all the others agreed. However, they could all have
agreed to wage an unholy war of agression to annex Spanish territories, as
Hamilton wanted to do, or to enslave everyone in the Northwest Territory.
And although a bill could be passed without the approval of every State that
adversely affected New York, NY could stop paying its taxes, which it couldn’t
do after the substance of a republic was diluted by the Constitution to the
extent that only its form was guaranteed to the States, such that they may:
chose their own delegates to the electoral college; have the exclusive right
to approve Amendments directly or treaties indirectly in the Senate; continue
to choose their own representatives in Congress. The 17th further diluted the
latter by replacing each State as an entity with sovereign capacity, by the
collective will of its People, or republican in form only, which might now
make the country a “republican democracy.”
mAximo
November 28, 2010 at 10:30 AM
That last phrase needs to be turned around to read:
which might now make the country a “republican democracy”
or “republican in form only.”
Going over the heads of the State legislatures via the 17th Amendment,
was a violation of the terms of the Constitution, which guaranteed a
republican form to EACH State, meaning that the amending formula of the
Articles was to apply, such that the 17th Amendment required unanimity.
The federal gov’t was to be the fiduciary of each State, not the States
as a collective, at the very least in regard to this guarantee. Its
enforcement of the 17th is a breach of its fiduciary duty to each State
that didn’t ratify it. The 17th is thus the polar opposite of the 16th
which didn’t need any State to ratify it: at most only needing Congress
to decree that a federal court may only consider the immediate source
of income, instead of back-deriving it to any prior source.
adask
November 28, 2010 at 4:07 PM
If I understand your comment correctly, you are advocating a “republican democracy”. If that’s true, I absolutely disagree.
In the phrase “republican democracy,” the word “republican” is merely an adjective and the word “democracy” is a noun. The fundamental reality of a “republican democracy” is “democracy”.
I do not want a democracy. I don’t want a “communist democracy” or a “socialist democracy” or even a “republican democracy” because, at bottom, every one of those damned forms of government are democracies that 1) necessarily deny God’s existence; 2) deny God’s law; 3) deny individual sovereignty (which can only be traced to to God).
My position is firm: Screw every G.D. democracy. There is no adjective that you can hang on the front end of any “democracy” to convince me that democracy is anything other than atheistic (at least) and arguably Satanic–and certainly adverse to any notion of Liberty.
John Hoyt
May 16, 2011 at 11:33 AM
…It seems to me that we must look into the organic and historical relation between democracy and capital. For example, what we had in the ex-soviet bloc and have today in China are particular, historical forms of democracy where you can see capital production relations dominating the whole process under a mask of “socialism”. The american “left” did not and still don’t understand how world’s capital end up dominating what they still call “socialist” countries…
Dominick Mastroserio not (DOMINICK MASTROSERIO)
June 27, 2011 at 11:07 AM
Getting back to basic definitions of the words “democracy” and “republican” what “democracy” means, put simply, is rule of the people from the Greek words “demos” (people) and “ocracy” (rule).
“Republic”, put simply, is from two Latin words meaning “res” (thing) and “publica” (public)…combined into the word “republic” it means an abstract form of government (as opposed to a personal form of government such as monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy, etc.).
As I construe all this admittedly confused and obfuscated bastardization of definitions whose spinmeisters use the words “democracy” and “republican”, with self-interested intent, to mean something wholly at odds with those words’ original intent, a republican form of government, through the direct democracy of its constituency of sovereigns, ratifies, affectuates and impliments the will of those sovereigns as “the many”.
Way I see it – this problem of how to best decide what should be the law of the land – whether there shall be a “tyranny of the many”, tyranny of the few or tyranny of a dictator…or some form of government wherein no tyranny at all will be tolerated…and how this should be affectuated and applied…for a tyranny of a majority is none the less a tyranny…is the crux of the eternal problem of governance.
Remember, democracy, oligarchy and monarchy are all forms of “rule” and this is where “republic” or public thing form of government comes in – as far as a democracy goes, at least – what I mean is that once a democratic majority has voiced its will, this will must be examined (criticized and analyzed) by elected representatives of the people and an independent judicial review, whose ONLY function is to discover, temper and craft a form of that proposed law that takes into account not only the will of the majority but the rights of ALL minorities and individuals as well – before this majority-voice legal desire can be implimented.
For if each of the many people is to be a true sovereign then all binding law must accomodate individuals, minorities and a majority of these sovereigns without diminishing or infringing upon any of their Constitutionally granted rights and liberty.
Republicanism, then, to me, is how a democracy comprised of sovereigns finds a way of accomdating each sovereign, in the public thing which includes each one of them as the many.
I have always believed that this essential, core problem of civilization, that is, how to recognize the individual sovereignty of the many without compromising liberty of any – this has been, from primitive times, what free men have attempted to establish in actuality.
Obviously, mankind may have figured out how it could theoretically accomplished and establish a place (public thing) where liberty is guaranteed to each and all sovereigns (as with the founders of The United States of America) but as our own history has shown…this theory has still to be applied effectively, as construed, in reality.
Yartap
June 29, 2012 at 4:24 PM
The Republic of China, the Russia Federation, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.), the united States of America and French Republic are all republics. Each uses an ELECTION PROCESS (we should not call it a “democratic process”) to choose their regional representatives.
So what makes us different from them? Well, we did start out with more Freedoms and Rights, plus we “did have” this “Constitution” and “Bill of Rights” thing. So, why have we been losing our Rights and Freedoms?
It is not a matter of democracy or republic that is causing our country to fail, it is a matter of “WHO IS VOTING!”
We have to many people with conflicts of interest (government employees), we have to many households with many voters in each on welfare out voting us.
Apathy is not the problem. The true Americans are voting, but they are being out voted. We have to many weak, un-intelligent people voting for tyrants with golden promises.