The U.S. is Dangerously Close to Mass Democracy – Freedom Outpost

Center for Self Governance (CSG) Administrative Team 8bc91793-9b7d-4b7f-ac2e-8222b702d644-2

Were you happy to see the presidential election conclude on November 8th only to be disappointed in the escalation of hostility after the election? America has always prided itself in the ability to have a peaceful transition of control. Are we losing the ability to have that peaceful transition? If so, why? Perhaps it is because we are being conditioned and trained to believe our system is a pure democracy, so we are behaving as if it were true.

Some democratic principles are an important part of our Republic and must be preserved if we are to maintain a balanced, free government. But history has proven the road to mass democracy will lead to turmoil, contention, anarchy, and will necessarily result in a tyrannical oligarchy that will be difficult to reverse.

Let me explain. America’s Framers sought a form of government that would eliminate the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. George Washington described this human struggle wherein “there is a natural and necessary progression, from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of Tyranny.” (Circular to the States, 8 June 1783) Thomas Jefferson hoped that “the pendulum will rest finally in the middle.” (Letter to William Smith, 2 February 1788)

The Framers analyzed history to identify what forms of government would best promote liberty rather than tyranny or anarchy. They discovered no single form. They did, however, discover that parts of one added to pieces of another provided a solution and from these created a unique mixed form of government with “separation of powers” and “checks and balances”.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. Great for the wolves, bad for the sheep. It could be said that our Republic is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner, with a law that none of the three can be on the menu.

All societies are made up of warring factions and have been throughout history: rich against the poor, religion against religion, consumer against producer, etc. The Framers realized that the only way to have good government is to provide the best representation for each faction. The way to accomplish this is with a “mixed” form of government, which includes the most advantageous parts of a democracy, republic, oligarchy, and monarchy.

They knew that mass democracy would become the tyranny of the majority, which has proven to be just as incompatible with freedom as any tyrant on earth. John Adams said: “While [democracy] lasts it is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy] … Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide.” (Letter to John Taylor, 17 December 1814)

James Madison said in Federalist #10, “…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.”

It is clear the Framers did NOT create a democracy, nor did they even consider it. Some democratic principles are good, and must be kept, but if we remove the safeguards against the tyranny of democracy, we will be left in ruins like every other democracy in history.

We are witnessing the tyranny of democracy being played out during this current transition of power. Refusal to accept the outcome of the election based on the popular vote, protests that lead to riots in the streets, boycotts, and calling for the elimination of the Electoral College, are just a few symptoms of being conditioned to believe our form of government is a pure democracy.

Voting is the most democratic part of our institutions. It gives the majority of the people direct control over political offices and to legislation through the referendum and initiative processes. But care must be taken to check the mob rule mentality that often accompanies democracy “actions”. We need a variety of voting methods to prevent mass democracy. The problems that come with the democratic action of voting are kept in check by the law, appointed positions, Electoral College, federalism, and legislative bodies.

In the recent presidential elections, wasn’t each candidate promoted as the “savior of our nation”? The rallying cries on both sides declared that if their candidate did not win, America would not survive four more years. We act as if we are electing a king; then we get angry when they act like a king. This is completely predictable in a democratic election—and is exactly why we do NOT have a purely democratic method for electing the president. It is for this very reason the Framers wisely created the Electoral College.

The Electoral College was specifically designed to prevent two things:

  • First, to keep the presidential office from becoming that of a “king”: a politically charged popularity contest in which the new president only caters to the majority that put them in office. Sound familiar?
  • Second, to shore up the principle of Federalism, providing a unique structure in which our rights can be protected by one level of government if they are abused by another level of government. The Electoral College keeps the presidential election local rather than nationalizing it. If we do away with the Electoral College, the President would be elected by a few populous states and larger cities. The rest of us could just stay at home to await the outcome of New York and California’s decision—hardly a true representation of the people of America.

One of the most dangerous things about democracy is the ability of the majority to vote away the natural rights of a few. This danger is safeguarded by law. We institute specific rules and laws that cannot be changed by a simple vote of the people. Laws must be filtered through multiple bodies representing various branches of government, for example, democracy in the House of Representatives, oligarchy in the Senate, monarchy in the President, oligarchy in the Courts, and finally back to democracy in the Jury. This process protects each of us from the tyrannies of mob rule, an elite class, or a monarch.

There is great wisdom in directly electing the House of Representatives every two years. That gives the people a house of their own to directly affect the Federal Government. But the House can be emotional and moved by every whim. To check that volatility we have the Senate, but we corrupted that check in 1913 with the Seventeenth Amendment, the direct election of Senators. We turned BOTH houses into democracy. We are left with a self-serving Senate that neither represents the people nor the states. We must rethink the Seventeenth Amendment and return to appointing our Senators by state legislature, as originally designed.

Our legislative bodies protect us from a pure democracy by establishing fixed laws through a lengthy, deliberative process. We should, therefore, guard our legislative process from the tyranny of the majority.

Our system was based on a careful study of history, but we have abandoned some fundamental discoveries without an understanding of the history or purpose those principles had in the first place. Most of our meddling has been to either centralize or democratize the system. Ironically, the two represent a simultaneous move closer to tyranny and anarchy, the very extremes our original Republican system was built to avoid.  If we are experiencing tyranny and anarchy, it is time to reset our system to its default.

Democracy is a temptation not easily refused. But too much of a good thing is not a good thing. Too much democracy is violent and destructive, as evidenced by the current political climate. We must keep the necessary guards in place to keep just the right amount of democracy, while protecting our freedoms from mob rule. We must abandon the road to mass democracy and return to simply keeping our republic as the Framers designed it.

*Article by Bill Norton

Obama Leaves U.S.A $9,335,000,000,000 Deeper in Debt

Mountain Republic

Trillions In New Federal Debt Obama’s Real Legacy

President Barack Obama will leave the federal government approximately $9,335,000,000,000 deeper in debt than it was when he took office eight years ago, according to data released today by the U.S. Treasury.

The increased debt incurred under Obama equals approximately $75,129 for every person in the United States who had a full-time job in December.

The $9,334,590,089,060.56 that the debt had increased under Obama as of the close of business on Wednesday is far more debt than was accumulated by any previous president. It equals nearly twice as much as the $4,889,100,310,609.44 in additional debt that piled up during the eight years George W. Bush served as president.

Source: Obama Leaves U.S.A $9,335,000,000,000 Deeper in Debt

View original post

Character Education Lesson for Inauguration 2017: Diversity of Thought/Political Beliefs Not Allowed?

PUMABydesign001's Blog

EDITOR’S NOTE: The double standards that has ensued over the past eight years, the demands for tolerance from the intolerant and the divisiveness forced upon us by Progressives who now want to pin discord sewn by the left on our 45th president and non-Progressives was on clear display the past few days and I have no doubt played out in school districts across the United States during Friday’s inaugural proceedings.

Missouri Education Watchdog by Gretchen Logue

January 20, 2017 was the inauguration of the 45th President. Whether or not you supported President Trump, it is remarkable that an inauguration has occurred every four years since 1789. (Here are a few interesting facts about some Presidential inaugurations). Yesterday’s inauguration included Missourians prominently participating in the ceremony. From The St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Senator Roy Blunt, the first Missourian to chair the Joint Congressional Committee on Inauguration Ceremonies since…

View original post 350 more words

Occupational Licensing: How Government-Created Barriers to Work Are Undermining Mobility and America’s Economy

International Liberty

Red tape is a huge burden on the American economy, with even an Obama Administration bureaucracy acknowledging that costs far exceed supposed benefits.

And the problem gets worse every year.

If I had to pick the worst example of foolish regulation, there would be lots of absurd examples from the federal government, and the crazy bureaucrats at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission probably would be at the top of the list.

But the worst regulations, at least if measured by the harm to lower-income Americans, probably are imposed by state governments. Yes, I’m talking about the scourge of occupational licensing.

A report published by The American Interest elaborates on this problem.

…it’s important that policymakers don’t lose sight of more subtle ways the government has distorted the economy to favor the politically connected. One example: Onerous occupational licensing laws that force people to undergo thousands of…

View original post 1,068 more words

Four days and a wake-up

Cmblake6's Weblog

I’ve got a bunch of people at my job that are sharing the countdown. Of course they would, we ARE the people who work for a living.

So we chat, and we cheer, and we hold up the number of fingers until the day.

I was talking to one of my old bosses the other day, no longer in my chain of command, and his words kind of made sense. His words were “It’s not so much that I’m looking forward to Trump in, as much as Ovomit the fuck OUT”. Now, I’m looking extremely forward to Trump in. He’s got a lot of good plans. We have the numbers in CONgress to make his ideas work. We simply need to hold their feet to the fire to do these things, so we can’t just drop back in to our old “American Idol” watching mode, we need to keep our…

View original post 109 more words

McAfee demolishes Russia did it myth

Trutherator's Weblog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2jD4SF9gFE

“It’s not just flimsy”, or “…propaganda intended to incite the American people to anger against Russia for some reason…”

Or, McAfee said, “our initelligence community is so ignorant and naive that they should all be replaced!”

They [the hackers] “…according to the report used a piece of malware a year and a half old.” Would a sophisticated state agency use an outdated piece of malware and make sure they left tracks all over the place in the target system that were so easy to hide behind modifications and proxy IPs?

SANS and other credible cyber security consultants and educators are laughing at this story for the gullible. It is meant for political science and minority studies students and for people who get their education on computer hacking from movies, who do not know this stuff.

This has all the attributes of a psy-war campaign against the citizens of the…

View original post 79 more words

Least Surprising Headline Ever – another Giant Cost Overrun and Huge Delay for a Pork-Barrel Infrastructure Project

International Liberty

When politicians create programs and announce projects, they routinely lie about the real costs. Their primary goal is to get initial approval for various boondoggles and they figure it will be too late to reverse path once it becomes apparent that something will cost for more than the initial low-ball estimates. Obamacare is a classic (and discouraging) example.

These “cost overruns” are very bad news for taxpayers, of course, but the system works very well for insiders. Bureaucrats get more money. Interest groups get more money. Government contractors get more money. Government consultants get more money. And some of that money gets funneled back to politicians in the form of campaign contributions, so they get more money as well.

This scam is particularly prevalent whenever politicians decide to build infrastructure. And there are lots of local examples in the Washington area.

View original post 518 more words

The Left’s Siren Song of Coerced Equality

International Liberty

Since I can’t even keep track of schools of thought on the right (libertarians, traditional conservatives, neocons, reform conservatives, compassionate conservatives, Trump-style populists, etc), I’m not going to pretend to know what’s happening on the left.

But it does appear that something significant – and bad – is happening in the statist community.

Traditionally, folks on the left favored a conventional welfare state, which revolved around two components.

  1. Means-tested programs for the ostensible purpose of alleviating poverty (e.g.., Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, etc).
  2. Social-insurance programs for the ostensible purpose of alleviating sickness, unemployment, and aging (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, etc).

This agenda was always a bad idea for both macro and micro reasons, and has become a very bad idea because of demographic changes.

But now the left has expanded its goals to policies that are far more…

View original post 795 more words

An Open Letter to Meryl Streep

Socialism is not the Answer

http://i.ndtvimg.com/i/2015-01/meryl_640x480_61420634070.jpg Image via movies.ndtv.com

US Defense Watch

Dear Ms. Streep,

Congratulations on your award last night. You’ve had a long and successful career. Bravo for you. I’m sorry to say, I personally don’t like your films or your acting, but I guess I’m just another deplorable who watches football and “mixed” martial arts when John Wayne movies aren’t on TV.

In typical Hollywood tradition, you used your moment in the spotlight on stage to bash President-Elect Trump and soon to be President Trump.

As Jackie Gleason said, “How sweet it is…”

Your little tirade on stage consisted of a myriad of criticisms launched against Mr. Trump. In true liberal fashion, they were filled with emotion and fury and signified nothing.

View original post 824 more words

The Petulant Child Chronicles

Indyfromaz's Blog: The Thoughts of An Independent Arizonan

With 10 days left to complain and whine in Office, so he can whine and complain out of office incessantly, the Narcissist-In-Chief is pouting again.

WASHINGTON — President Obama said on Friday that criticism from the left wing of his own Democratic Party helped feed into the unpopularity of Obamacare, his signature health care reform law.

Obama has been spending part of his last two weeks in office urging supporters to speak out against plans by Republicans – who will soon control both the White House and Congress – to dismantle the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

At a town hall event with Vox Media, Obama acknowledged the politics have been stacked against his reforms, mainly blaming Republicans who he said refused to help make legislative fixes to Obamacare, which provides subsidies for private insurance to lower-income Americans who do not have healthcare plans at work.

But Obama also said liberals…

View original post 574 more words