Democracy or Tyranny?

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Fri May 25, 2001 7:05 pm

I'm not addressing the content of your thread... yet.

I'm addressing the title of the thread. Why?

Because Democracy is Tyranny! Or at least it leads to tyranny as was understood by those in the past ranging from Thomas Jefferson and John Adams to Karl Marx and V.I. Lenin.

Referring to the united States as a "democracy" is one of my pet peeves...

We do not live in a Democracy. (Well, not until things started being changed for the worse.) This nation was founded as a Constitutional Republic... a different animal.

A Democracy is basically a "mobocracy" in the fact that the will of the majority rules.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
-- THOMAS JEFFERSON

"When the government fears the People, that is Liberty. When the People fear the Government, that is tyranny."
-- THOMAS JEFFERSON

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
-- JOHN ADAMS (1814)

"Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few."
--George Bernard Shaw

"Democracy is indispensable to Socialism."
-- V. I. LENIN

"Socialism leads to Communism."
-- KARL MARX
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And from the 1928 American Military Training Manual: (this was the last year these definitions were published by our military)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>DEMOCRACY, at TM200025, 118120: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expresssion. Results in a mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC, at TM200025, 120121: Authority is derived through the election of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment and progress.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As the old saying goes:

"A Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. A Republic is two wolves voting to have the sheep for dinner, only to find a well-informed, well-armed sheep knowledgable about it's Constitutional Rights."

And a few more:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.
-- JAMES MADISON

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.
-- ALEXANDER TYTLER

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
-- BARRY GOLDWATER (1964)

The only important difference between Nazi-ism, Fascism, Communism, Communitarianism, Socialism and (Neo-)Liberalism is the spelling, and that the last group hasn't got the Collective brains to figure it out.
-- Bill Vance

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
-- JUSTICE LOUIS BRANDEIS (1928)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And finally:

"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."
-- JOHN HAY (1872)

[This message has been edited by Panther (edited May 25, 2001).]

Norm Abrahamson · Post by **Norm Abrahamson** » Fri May 25, 2001 7:52 pm

Panther asks,

"I'm addressing the title of the thread. Why?
Because Democracy is Tyranny!"

Fair question. I do not believe that democracy equals tyranny. You stated that we live in a republic, and I agree. The American Heritage Dictionary, New College Ed. (1978) defines democracy as "Government b;y the peole, exercised either directly or through elected represenatives." A republic neatly falls into this definition. Also, Democarcy or Tyranny is a catchy title.

So, now that I have explained the title, care to comment on the "content of the thread?"

Norm Abrahamson

Norm Abrahamson · Post by **Norm Abrahamson** » Sat May 26, 2001 5:32 am

The recent jury nullification thread seems to have broken along two camps. Please forgive me (or better yet, correct me) if I misstate anybody's position.

One side leans toward the proposition that government has outgrown its proper place in society. That instead of government serving the people, people serve the government. Laws creep into every aspect of society and infringe on personal liberty in ways that are dangerous and insidious.

The other side leans toward the proposition that we are a nation of laws, and it is our laws that in an important way protect against tyranny. (I fall into this camp)

Both sides rely on the U.S. Constitution as the seminal document that supports their views.

I am interested in hearing from both sides of the aisle on this topic which has been lurking beneath the surface of the jury nullification debate and in a large sense underscores much of the political debate today.

Norm Abrahamson

Yosselle · Post by **Yosselle** » Tue May 29, 2001 10:00 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson: So, now that I have explained the title, care to comment on the "content of the thread?"

I do not believe that democracy equals tyranny.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Technically, you are correct. Democracy does not equal tyranny, anymore than "the virus that caues AIDS" equals AIDs. But we all understand the princple being expounded here.

As long as we're stating beliefs, let's start with a definition, and then a follou up:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

Anyone who is not a libertarian (and I know many "good" people who are not) knowingly or unknowingly act in ways tyrannical. The aggregate, cummulative, inevitable effect of such behaviour is tyranny.

Yoselle
Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master.
--SALLUST

[This message has been edited by Yosselle (edited May 29, 2001).]

Yosselle · Post by **Yosselle** » Tue May 29, 2001 10:56 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson: So, now that I have explained the title, care to comment on the "content of the thread?"

I do not believe that democracy equals tyranny.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Technically, you are correct. Democracy does not equal tyranny, anymore than "the virus that caues AIDS" equals AIDS. But we all understand the princple being expounded here.

As long as we're stating beliefs, let's start with a definition, and then a follou up:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

Anyone who is not a libertarian (and I know many "good" people who are not) knowingly or unknowingly act in ways tyrannical. The aggregate, cummulative, inevitable effect of such behaviour is tyranny.

Yoselle
Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master.
--SALLUST

Norm Abrahamson · Post by **Norm Abrahamson** » Wed May 30, 2001 12:28 am

Yosselle,

Interesting definition of "libertarian." Ordinarily, libertarian is defined as "One who believes in freedom of action and thought. 2. One who believes in free will." American Heritage Dictionary, New College Ed. 1978. One who believes that it is wrong to initiate force against another human being under any circumstances is much closer to the definition of a pacifist.

I must admit that your analogy between democracy to tyranny is as the aids virus is to aids, escapes me. What are you trying to say? Do you believe that our government is tantamount to tyranny because of police powers to enforce law? Are laws by their nature tyranical? Those views don't carry much weight or bear up well to critical analysis. (I also don't believe that is your position because you seem to be a staunch supporter of the Constitution in your prior posts.)

Forget about quoting somebody else, what is your point of view?

I don't believe for a second that every law is just, or that every court decision is just. However, ultimately, the legislators that make the laws answer to us, and that is the trump card that should make our government one "by the people and for the people."

This nation is not a tyranny. The responsibility for our laws, good and bad, rests squarely on our shoulders.

Norm Abrahamson

Yosselle · Post by **Yosselle** » Wed May 30, 2001 5:51 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson: Interesting definition of "libertarian." Ordinarily, libertarian is defined as "One who believes in freedom of action and thought. 2. One who believes in free will." American Heritage Dictionary, New College Ed. 1978.

I see no conflict between my definition of libertarian and yours.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson: One who believes that it is wrong to initiate force against another human being under any circumstances is much closer to the definition of a pacifist.

If one substitutes the word use for the word initiate then the above statement becomes correct.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson: Do you believe that our government is tantamount to tyranny because of police powers to enforce law?

No.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson: Are laws by their nature tyranical?

No.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson: Those views don't carry much weight or bear up well to critical analysis.

True, but those aren't my views. So, until my views have been critically analyzed, I guess the jury is still out.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson: I must admit that your analogy between democracy to tyranny is as the aids virus is to aids, escapes me. What are you trying to say?

Forget about quoting somebody else, what is your point of view? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Democracy (ie. majoritarianism) leads to tyranny. Nobody has the right to initiate force against anyone else under any circumstances. That includes the rest of the voters in my town, county, state or country, the police, or government agents from any of the myriad state and federal agencies. Any use of force against someone who did not first commit a crime of depriving someone else of one or more of their natural human rights, is itself a crime. Only the willful deprivation of rights is a bona fide crime. Laws against anything else are tyrannical.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson: (I also don't believe that is your position because you seem to be a staunch supporter of the Constitution in your prior posts.)

There is no inconsistency between my support of the Constitution and my view on the the use of force.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson: I don't believe for a second that every law is just, or that every court decision is just. However, ultimately, the legislators that make the laws answer to us, and that is the trump card that should make our government one "by the people and for the people."

This nation is not a tyranny. The responsibility for our laws, good and bad, rests squarely on our shoulders.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice ideals. Unfortunately, the evidence of government oppression in this country is overwhelming, and our trump card (voting) doesn't work very well anymore for a variety of reasons. If the number of cases of serious governmental abuse was very tiny, and the responsible individuals in government were swiftly and severly punished and the lawmakers who passed laws that enabled the legalization of that abuse were also quickly punished as the traitors that they are, then I might see the glass as half full instead of half empty.

BTW, the Supreme Court of the United States has just held that a private organization can no longer make its own qualifying and participatory rules. You know the case. What's next? Will the ABA have to let me become a lawyer because I have dyslexia or a diagnosed phobia of long written tests? And please don't tell me that these cases must be considered on a case by case basis. That would be the Rule of Man instead of the Rule of Law.

The way we're headed, it's only a matter of time before all private decisions will be subject to governmental approval (far more than most people realize are already). Then we will have complete tyranny. And it starts with tyranny of the majority (ie. democracy).

Yosselle
--Don't disciminate. Hire the truly stupid. http://civilliberty.about.com/newsissues/civilliberty/msubjury.htm

[This message has been edited by Yosselle (edited May 30, 2001).]

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Wed May 30, 2001 7:34 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson:

I must admit that your analogy between democracy to tyranny is as the aids virus is to aids, escapes me. What are you trying to say? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although Yosselle didn't state it explicitly, I will: Democracy is the virus that leads to tyranny just as there is an AIDS virus that leads to AIDS.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Do you believe that our government is tantamount to tyranny because of police powers to enforce law? Are laws by their nature tyranical? Those views don't carry much weight or bear up well to critical analysis. (I also don't believe that is your position because you seem to be a staunch supporter of the Constitution in your prior posts.)

The problem that I have with this paragraph is the fact that you use leading questions to infer that someone holds those beliefs, and then make your case against those conclusions you have inferred. It's basically building a strawman and is the tactical equivalent to asking someone, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Those beliefs and positions that are inferred from your questions have not been stated and are not the opinions that I or Yosselle (as he has stated) hold.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

I don't believe for a second that every law is just, or that every court decision is just.

Then in the case of those (admittedly) unjust laws, wouldn't you agree that jury nullification is a mechanism, supported by historical precedence, that is available to the citizenry to prevent the injustice of convicting someone of that unjust law?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

However, ultimately, the legislators that make the laws answer to us, and that is the trump card that should make our government one "by the people and for the people."

Unfortunately, too many of the people (in what is being run essentially as a "Democracy") have learned that through their legis-critters they are able to vote themselves money from the public treasury.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

This nation is not a tyranny.

<hr>
"Democracy is indispensable to Socialism."
-- V. I. LENIN

"Socialism leads to Communism."
-- KARL MARX

Communism (from Merriam-Webster's): a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls

(As Yosselle has already noted, the SCOTUS has handed down another decision which supports state controls of a previously believed to be private organization. Additionally, the lines between the Demopublican and Republicrat parties has so blurred that the distinctions for all intents and purposes are virtually non-existant, creating a single party control which happens to have two branches... one called Democrat, the other called Republican.)

Totalitarian (from Merriam-Webster's): 1) of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy; 2) of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)

Tyranny 1 : 1) oppressive power exerted by government; 2) a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force
<hr>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

The responsibility for our laws, good and bad, rests squarely on our shoulders.

Hmmmm... I wonder just how much control an innocent woman (never committed a crime, never charged with a crime, never accused of a crime, who happened to be married to a man who's only crime was to cut a length of metal 1/4" shorter than some government statute allows) had at the point a government-paid assassin pulled the trigger on a high-powered, high-capacity, government-use-only sniper rifle and blew the front half of her head off in full view of her children... and the only "weapon" the woman was holding was a loaded baby! A G-D fearing, very religious, just-wanna-be-left-alone woman murdered. Her attacker? Given a medal.

Yeah, I guess the responsibility for that law, passed over 40 years before her birth, rested squarely on her shoulders... right where her head used to be.

Allen M. · Post by **Allen M.** » Thu May 31, 2001 12:01 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>DEMOCRACY, at TM200025, 118120: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expresssion. Results in a mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC, at TM200025, 120121: Authority is derived through the election of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment and progress.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just caught that one, Panther. I thought you were writing about today until I scanned upward to the 1928 line.

------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera

Norm Abrahamson · Post by **Norm Abrahamson** » Thu May 31, 2001 12:43 pm

If our "democracy" has led to tyranny, when did this nation become a tyranny or has it always been so? We still have the right to criticize the government in open forums. We have the right to travel freely within this country without identification papers or other official permission. We have the right to practice our religion or no religion at all. People who may be viewed as dissidents do not generally "disappear" as is common in other countries.

Panther made a reference to Ruby Ridge and I assume he also has a big problem with what ocurred at Waco. Incidents like these are going to happen as long as flawed human beings are making decisions. An important lesson to take from those disasters is that they were not swept under the rug. The free press reported on those tragedies in great detail. Talking and writing about those incidents does not bring down the wrath of the government.

So where is the tyranny? Because you can't carry a sawed off shotgun? This nation may be far from Utopia, but it is also far from tyranny.

Norm Abrahamson

Yosselle · Post by **Yosselle** » Thu May 31, 2001 2:03 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson: If our "democracy" has led to tyranny, when did this nation become a tyranny or has it always been so?

The first big push was provided by Abraham Lincoln. The second was around 1913. It's been steadily downhill (and accelerating since the 1960's) from there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson: So where is the tyranny?

So many abuses. So little time. Where shall we begin?

Yosselle
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
-- GOETHE

Norm Abrahamson · Post by **Norm Abrahamson** » Thu May 31, 2001 3:54 pm

Yosselle,

How about giving some specifics?

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Thu May 31, 2001 8:36 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson:

We still have the right to criticize the government in open forums.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haven't read the proposed "Campaign Finance Reform" bill, have you?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

We have the right to travel freely within this country without identification papers or other official permission.

It would be interesting to see you try to drive an unregistered automobile cross country, without any ID of any type, while carrying, say... $100,000 in cash with you.

Oh, yeah... I almost forgot... there were a couple of cases where people were fined ($100) in Worcester Court this week (taken from the court records as reported in the Telegram & Gazette) for failure to identify themselves to a police officer.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

We have the right to practice our religion or no religion at all.

Unless you're Christian and on public property...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

People who may be viewed as dissidents do not generally "disappear" as is common in other countries.

There are a few examples I could tell you about... here're some interesting ones since you bring up Waco: Dr. Zegel, a FLIR expert who's report gave a conclusion which contradicted the "official" explanation of what was on the FLIR tapes from Waco almost died from blood poisoning and withdrew his report on the tapes. Dr. Allard, another FLIR expert having reached similar conclusions as Dr. Zegel almost died of a heart attack and similarly withdrew his report/results. Mr. Ghigliotti, a FLIR expert hired by the U.S. House Government Reform Committee specifically to investigate the Waco FLIR tapes, died of a heart attack after 1) telling others that his report of what was visible on the FLIR tapes from Waco would wake up America (He also said that he feared repercussions to prevent the release of his findings), 2) having had a complete physical and being given a clean bill of health only a month earlier. Jack Harwell, Waco sheriff who was critical of government actions and vocal about government coverup of their illegal activites (specifically: not a valid search warrant, no search warrant presented or on sight at the time of the raid, violations of the Posse Comitatus law) died of a heart attack under mysterious circumstances.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Panther made a reference to Ruby Ridge and I assume he also has a big problem with what ocurred at Waco.

Correct, as well as: Oklahoma City, the Paz murder in CA, the Cox murder in VA, the Berger case in MT, the Jacobsen case in CA, and many others... Oh, yeah, like the Lamplugh case in PA, which included the deliberate and brutal stomping to death of one of the family's kittens by a BATF agent (like that's a dangerous animal...

)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Incidents like these are going to happen as long as flawed human beings are making decisions.

Not if we start punishing them for violating the Rights of the citizenry.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

An important lesson to take from those disasters is that they were not swept under the rug.

Didn't watch too much of the Congressional hearings or read too much about them, huh?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

The free press reported on those tragedies in great detail.

Pravda?!?! You don't really believe you get the complete and unbiased story from the mainstream news media outlets, do you?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

So where is the tyranny? Because you can't carry a sawed off shotgun?

Since when do We, the People allow government agents with guns to function as accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner against other citizens simply because they are associated with an "alleged" criminal? Since when do We, the People allow the CIA to function against its charter on domestic soil? Since when do We, the People allow the military, in violation of Posse Comitatus, to bring it's might down on private citizens (whether criminals or not)? Since when do We, the People allow that someone is guilty until they prove their innocence? Since when do We, the People allow the confiscation of private property, the murder of the owners of that property, and the distribution of the value of that property to those murders, based on unproven allegations of wrong-doing?

Well, all of those things have happened with narry a mention in the mainstream press...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

This nation may be far from Utopia, but it is also far from tyranny.

Next time take the red pill...

Besides, what's wrong with my carrying a sawed-off shotgun? A shotgun is one of the most effective self-defense firearms available and having one with a shorter barrel (and a pistol grip for that matter) is the best tactical defense tool for use in a home defense situation. They were used on stage-coaches in the old west, in tanks during WWI (and since), and until 1934 were in more homes than you could count easily... But by the stroke of a pen and a little legislative fiat, suddenly one that has a barrel 18" or more is OK, while one that is 17.99" results in a one way trip to Club Fed! (There's actually additional rstrictions, but let's not get into a "gun" debate... just yet.)

<hr>
In response to Yosselle's witty sigs, here's one of mine:

Silly rabbit, tricks are for prostitutes...

[This message has been edited by Panther (edited May 31, 2001).]

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Thu May 31, 2001 8:43 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by mikemurphy:

I'm not sure what you mean when you state Abraham Lincoln as an example, and I certainly don't mean to put words in your mouth, but are you think of his suspension of Habeas Corpus?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mike, I don't know what Yosselle has/had in mind regarding Lincoln, but I have some things to add concerning his reign. I'll try to remember to dig out my material on Mr. Lincoln and post it...

mikemurphy · Post by **mikemurphy** » Fri Jun 01, 2001 5:04 am

Yosselle,

I'm not sure what you mean when you state Abraham Lincoln as an example, and I certainly don't mean to put words in your mouth, but are you think of his suspension of Habeas Corpus?

mike