A Republic, Not a Democracy

IMG Auteur
From the Archives : Originally published September 12th, 2012
588 words - Reading time : 1 - 2 minutes
( 101 votes, 4.5/5 ) , 11 commentaries
Print article
  Article Comments Comment this article Rating All Articles  
Our Newsletter...
FOLLOW : Democracy
Category : Fundamental Ideas





Last week marked the conclusion of the grand taxpayer funded spectacles known as the national party conventions. It is perhaps very telling that while $18 million in tax dollars was granted to each party for these lavish ordeals, an additional $50 million each was needed for security in anticipation of the inevitable protests at each event. This amounts to a total of $136 million in taxpayer funds for strictly partisan activities – a drop in the bucket relative to our disastrous fiscal situation, but disgraceful nonetheless. Parties should fund their own parties, not the taxpayer.

At these conventions, leaders determined, or pretended to determine, who they wished to govern the nation for the next four years amidst inevitable, endless exaltations of democracy. Yet we are not a democracy. In fact, the founding fathers found the concept of democracy very dangerous.

Democracy is majority rule at the expense of the minority. Our system has certain democratic elements, but the founders never mentioned democracy in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. In fact, our most important protections are decidedly undemocratic. For example, the First Amendment protects free speech. It doesn't – or shouldn't – matter if that speech is abhorrent to 51% or even 99% of the people. Speech is not subject to majority approval. Under our republican form of government, the individual, the smallest of minorities, is protected from the mob.

Sadly, the constitution and its protections are respected less and less as we have quietly allowed our constitutional republic to devolve into a militarist, corporatist social democracy. Laws are broken, quietly changed and ignored when inconvenient to those in power, while others in positions to check and balance do nothing. The protections the founders put in place are more and more just an illusion.

This is why increasing importance is placed on the beliefs and views of the president. The very narrow limitations on government power are clearly laid out in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Nowhere is there any reference to being able to force Americans to buy health insurance or face a tax/penalty, for example. Yet this power has been claimed by the executive and astonishingly affirmed by Congress and the Supreme Court. Because we are a constitutional republic, the mere popularity of a policy should not matter. If it is in clear violation of the limits of government and the people still want it, a Constitutional amendment is the only appropriate way to proceed. However, rather than going through this arduous process, the Constitution was in effect, ignored and the insurance mandate was allowed anyway.

This demonstrates how there is now a great deal of unhindered flexibility in the Oval Office to impose personal views and preferences on the country, so long as 51% of the people can be convinced to vote a certain way. The other 49% on the other hand have much to be angry about and protest under this system.

We should not tolerate the fact that we have become a nation ruled by men, their whims and the mood of the day, and not laws. It cannot be emphasized enough that we are a republic, not a democracy and, as such, we should insist that the framework of the Constitution be respected and boundaries set by law are not crossed by our leaders. These legal limitations on government assure that other men do not impose their will over the individual, rather, the individual is able to govern himself. When government is restrained, liberty thrives.



<< Previous article
Rate : Average note :4.5 (101 votes)
>> Next article
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today. Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill.
WebsiteMake a donation
Comments closed
  All Favorites Best Rated  
I saw/read nothing in Jim C'S original comment that warranted deletion. Actually i thought it was some sort of mistake.
Some of his comments are quite humorous. As I know very little of Lincoln, slavery, civil wars etc I can't and do not comment on those issues.
It matters very little if discussions get a little off topic as some of the original articles are way off topic in the first place.

As for government, the less the better I say. They like to buy votes by making people dependent on hand outs to the point where they become slaves to the government and that is certainly NOT to any individuals' benefit.

Ron Paul...Iv'e said before he would get my vote as he sticks to the Constitution and if that is unsettling then its the Constitution that should be changed.

I agree with Jim C that without some form of government, anarchy would ensue. Humans are simply not morally and/or spiritually on a level of consciousness sufficient enough to enable such a society and in many ways that is,I think, what JHK is on about.

Any way thats my bit for today. I am off to NYC for a couple of weeks with my family and then for a couple more weeks with with my absolutely gorgeous You Beaut Aussie Shiela Missus somewhere else in the good old USA and if its anything like our last holiday in Hawaii it should be great.
Rate :   11  9Rating :   2
The highest form of civilization is a civilization where there is no government.


Granted, we are far from it, but just to say that if people are civilized enough government is not needed, wich is the proper definition ofvanarchy. (no one has the power)
Rate :   23  5Rating :   18
I agree with Vox. Mr. C can be very critical, but never insulting to others.
Rate :   8  47Rating :   -39

Censorship is despicable, especially when criticism is validly based on an individual's past statements and positions -- in the case of Ron Paul. I would encourage the editors to look at the many instances this writer was personally called names without responsind in kind -- and no editorial actions taken against those name callers.

Yet to offer a differing opinion from the mainstream is censored -- and one that was supported by a minority of readers.

Those intolerate of my views will be pleased to know that I am leaving this site.

Jim C.

Rate :   18  58Rating :   -40
i have got to say that i agree with Jim C. on this. There was no valid reason to delete his comment. He did not resort to calling Ron Paul names and the first part of his comment was about the article Dr. Paul posted. Jim did stray somewhat by offering his opinion as to where Dr. Paul's reasoning would eventually lead, but that is something he did many times before without consequence. And it is something others also do without having their comment deleted.If you are to have a comment policy, it should be enforced with an even hand, not erraticly as has been the case not only with Jim, but also with David S. and myself.

i think you should repost his comment and send him a letter of apology. Until such time as you do so, i can only say shame on you!
Rate :   10  24Rating :   -14
As you will know, I am very much a critic of Jim C. Jim has seldom if ever offered commentary worthy of further discussion based upon the topic the writer used in the article. He smears any author he has a hatred for and he continually drives discussions off topic. He has in my opinion on many occasions crossed the line with his remarks and I'm surprised the moderators haven't removed more of his comments. This site and the many writers who contribute to it center articles and material on precious metals and economics delving into politics. Nowhere else on the site will you find content or discussions related to Lincoln, slavery, the civil war, or the promotion of anarchy yet Jim C has continually dragged these topics into the discussions with the blatant purpose of discrediting the writers. Very few of his comments are relevant to the article and when they do have any relevance it is only as a cover. The rest of each comment is then contempt filled material that is supposed to convince us to disregard the author. Repeatedly bringing up old material to help further ones hatred of an individual is every bit as bad as a direct insult or name calling. Jim C gives no leniency nor offers any forgiveness of past opinions the writers may have expressed yet expects it himself.

I for one won't miss the hate.

As Jim C once posted in a hate filled comment on a Ron Paul article, Adios and good riddance.


Note to Lovetochat, this is from the link above:
"The naive and confused man is retiring from politics after this last unsuccessful bid for the Presidency."

Calling a man who has served his country for as long and with as much dedication as Ron Paul has "naive and confused" is most certainaly insulting and name calling.

Rate :   32  12Rating :   20
Well, your attitude has convinced me to continue on -- as well as urges from fellow contributors.

Dissent has a place on this site, hopefully free of the personal insult you have so offen engaged in. The attacks on our US Embassies in Libya and Egypt should remind us of the need to be tolerate of opinion.

I wish to thank the editors for reinstating my comment.
Rate :   12  45Rating :   -33
My attitude had nothing to do with you staying here. A statement such as yours, claiming that if the moderators didn’t do what was demanded of them someone would leave the site was a knee jerk reaction, akin to a four year old throwing a hissy fit because mommy’s not buying him the toy he wants at the store. Just another attention grab.

Dissenting opinions are welcome, it’s what drives discussion and learning. Rehashing something for the hundredth time, especially when it’s not relevant, is not dissent, it’s insanity and as you’ve seen it’s not welcome. As Albert Einstein put it “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

The whole purpose of allowing public debate is to disseminate divergent opinions. That’s what we’re here for, not to read slander and smear campaigns. If you don’t like what an author posted then present a valid argument on why he/she is wrong. Bringing up nothing more than a writers beliefs, especially when they have nothing to do with the topic at hand, should result in comments being removed.

Besides, I’ve seen two other comments you made that were removed. I haven’t gone back to see if they were reinstated but this was not the first that I’ve witnessed.
Rate :   26  7Rating :   19
I'd rate this article 10 stars if I could.
Rate :   23  5Rating :   18
Everything Paul says here is true and relevant. But what he omits to say is more relevant.

He concluded the above article with these words: "When government is restrained, liberty thrives." What did he omit? That his position is not less government, but NO government. He admitted in the Republican primary debates that as President he would have no authority under the Constitution to stop any state from violating the rights of its citizens. As he has argued that Lincoln had no authority to use force to prevent state secession for any reason, nor even the authority to interfere with Southern slavery.

Ron Paul has been a brilliant defender of individual rights - but with a defense that would ultimately lead to anarchy and ruin. He is fortunately retiring from the Senate next year, and none too soon.

Rate :   15  75Rating :   -60
Jim C, you a an ignorant toad. You put words in peoples mouths and denounce every man that would make our way of life better. When I read your posts on Dr. Paul all I can sense is extreme jealousy. He is a self made man, a success, has serviced his country flawlessly, every thing you are not nor have been able to achieve. While anyone in the political arena can expect criticism it is people like yourself, on the dole, mindless Walmart shoppers, looking for free handouts, and taking great pains to bad mouth anyone who would make you take responsibility for your uselessness that needs to be shut up, not Dr. Paul.
Rate :   7  2Rating :   5
Latest comment posted for this article
Jim C, you a an ignorant toad. You put words in peoples mouths and denounce every man that would make our way of life better. When I read your posts on Dr. Paul all I can sense is extreme jealousy. He is a self made man, a success, has serviced his count  Read more
Spokes - 7/2/2013 at 6:00 PM GMT
Rating :  7  2
Top articles
World PM Newsflow