Your tax dollars at work

[Ridgerunner]

Oh boy the thought plickens!!!

What was it that Benjamin Franklin said? Sump'n about folks relinquishing their liberty for to have better security will lose both their liberties and their securities, and will deserve neither anyway?

I havent been following this thread for a while but I looked this morning. Ill comment on Marshalls post.

Old Ben did like that phrase. He used it a lot and phrased it in different ways in different places. One of the ways I like went something like this.

He who will give up some of his essential liberties for some security deserves neither and will soon lose both.

Im going by memory instead of looking it up so Im sure I mangled it but the important part to me is essential liberties. I saw a guy on another forum use a version of Bens quote to argue that the government taking away his right to poison the food supply was infringing on his liberty.

These quotes were used in a certain context. To ignore that context is to misrepresent the quote. Businesses and politicians pay people to do that. They are called spin doctors.

Back to the original thread topic, Jack brought attention to himself by breaking the law. He is engaging in something, hydroponic gardening, that from what Jack said is very often associated with an illegal activity. He waved a huge red flag saying Look at me.

My story on this. Back in the 1950s a couple of Revenuers visited Dad. They somehow knew he had purchased a large amount of sugar, which is often a sign that the person might be making moonshine. They wanted to know where the sugar went. Dad showed him several rows of jelly and jam. They went away satisfied.

But there is more to the story. Back in the late 1930s Dad made moonshine. He never got caught but that doesnt mean his name was not on a list. The Revenuers often knew who but they still had to catch them. Several of Dads brothers also made moonshine. One did get caught and spent 3 months in jail.

I dont know if the flag that triggered the visit (they were very polite, by the way) was just the sugar or a combination of the sugar and someone recognized his name. But dont think this kind of stuff is new. Its been going on since there were law enforcement officers.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Oldguy I really dont trust you on this one. I have no idea where you are headed with this question, but a Republic means you dont have a monarch. Denmark, one of the most free countries in the world with a tremendous amount of individual freedom and liberty has a queen, so it is not a republic, its a monarchy. Russia, Iran, and France all do not have monarchs so they are all republics. The word republic means absolutely nothing as far as personal liberty or freedom.

The United States is a Representative Democracy. Every citizen does not vote on every proposed law or rule. We elect people to do that.

 

[seedcorn]

Not sure of the differences so I looked them up-I know, cheating.

Republic-means government dealings are public-for all to see. Not to be hidden or done in secret. Makes me think in practice we are no longer a republic. It does allow elected or appointed officials.

Democracy-every person has the ability to participate equally in development of laws. This can be through elected officials.

 

[OldGuy43]

Read The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. Nowhere will you find the word "democracy". The Founding Fathers selected a republic on purpose. A republic is rule by law. It protects the individual's rights. The framers of our Constitution knew that a democracy had built into it it's own destruction. Once the people discovered that they could vote themselves "bread & circuses " that was the end of the nation.

Perhaps the simplest method of illustrating the difference between an oligarchy, a democracy and a republic would be to discuss the basic plot of the classic grade B western movie.

In this plot, one that the moviegoer has probably seen a hundred times, the brutal villain rides into town and guns down the unobtrusive town merchant by provoking him into a gunfight. The sheriff hears the gunshot and enters the scene. He asks the assembled crowd what happened, and they relate the story. The sheriff then takes the villain into custody and removes him to the city jail.

Back at the scene of the shooting, usually in a tavern, an individual stands up on a table (this individual by definition is a Demagogue) and exhorts the crowd to take the law into its own hands and lynch the villain. The group decides that this is the course of action that they should take (notice that the group now becomes a democracy where the majority rules) and down the street they (now called a mob) go. They reach the jail and demand that the villain be released to their custody. The mob has spoken by majority vote: the villain must hang.

The sheriff appears before the democracy and explains that the villain has the right to a trial by jury. The demagogue counters by explaining that the majority has spoken: the villain must hang. The sheriff explains that his function is to protect the rights of the individual, be he innocent or guilty, until that individual has the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law. The sheriff continues by explaining that the will of the majority cannot deny the individual that right. The demagogue continues to exhort the democracy to lynch the villain, but if the sheriff is persuasive and convinces the democracy that he exists to protect their rights as well, the scene should end as the people leave, convinced of the merits of the arguments of the sheriff.

The republican form of government has triumphed over the democratic form of mob action.

 

[897tgigvib]

That's true and actually quite the good wisdom Old Guy.

But, what if:

A guy who seems very villanous rides into town, flips the sheriff off as he rides by and curses the sheriff too, then hitches his mean and ugly horse right at the Sheriff's favorite hitching spot in front of the salloon, and walks into the salloon just a tad rough. In the Salloon there's suddenly a rucous, shots are fired, and everyone runs out. Now, our villianous looking guy is single minded and is hollering fer a bottle of whisky. Sheriff hears the shots and comes running, and bursts through the door just as our villainous looking guy is guilty of shooting his pistol at a bottle behind the bar. Sheriff tells the villianous guy to drop it, and the mean ugly villainous looking guy drops his pistol.

Folks come running back into the salloon, and it is immediately noticed that the bartender was shot dead.

Now, there is a big controversy brewing among the folks who were in the salloon when the shooting happened, but nobody fingers the real culprit. Ya see, the real culprit actually had a real argument with the bartender, and in reality, the bartender had been messing around with quite a number of fella's wives, and the real culprit everyone felt was doing them a favor.

However, as luck would have it, everyone's favorite ne'r do well and most despicable character just happened to come in. Now, mind you, this villainous guy was guilty of some things sure enough. He'd been known to get into fights, always had a saddle with someone elses initials on it, was a seriously ornery cuss and all that.

(((I shot the sheriff, but i did not shoot the deputy needs to be playing in the background!)))

Anyhow, the Sheriff is pleased to charge the villianous kind of guy with murder, AND, the sheriff knows darned good and well that it was really (((the coward of the county fades in))) little timothy mcfly who did the killing of the bartender.

Nobody's gonna say anything about it! For one thing, they'd all get charged with accessory to commit or with conspiracy to commit. There's surely no vigilante posse wanting to do anything. In fact, one guy rides off to the next town to go get the judge right away! Hanging judge Roy!

How does that fit in and work when comparing democracy with a republic old guy? I'm not very good at setting similes together. I used to be...

 

[OldGuy43]

As stated in your example the failure is not with the form of government, but with the people putting it into practice.

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy? With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, A republic, if you can keep it.

 

[Smart Red]

As stated in your example the failure is not with the form of government, but with the people putting it into practice.
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, A republic, if you can keep it.

Amen!

 

[Ridgerunner]

I did not find your definition of Republic in my Websters American College Dictionary; Copyright 1998 by Random House, Inc. I didnt find Seedcorns definition either, but I dont doubt that your definition and Seedcorns are in some dictionaries somewhere. Mine, the monarchy one, is the second definition offered in my dictionary. The first is a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

So what you are saying is that Denmark and England are republics, ruled by law but they have monarchs? It doesnt matter. Its just a label. Whats important is that we agree what we mean by a term. When I was working in a multinational multicultural workplace, one of my biggest challenges was to get people (including me) to understand what people were saying when they said something. Many disputes were resolved and many problems were easy to solve once we figured out what people meant by what they said.

Along those lines, what do you mean by democracy? Ill give you a few possible options from Merriam Webster. You may have your own separate definition.

DEMOCRACY

1a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majority

b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2: a political unit that has a democratic government

3 capitalized: the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy C. M. Roberts>

4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

I think I tend to agree with you. The Founding Fathers tried to protect certain people in government from the tyranny of the electorate, judges appointed for life for example and Senators appointed by the state legislatures, not directly elected by the people until the 17th Amendment and serving 6 year terms so they had time to learn their craft and not be in immediate fear of being replaced. I think it is informative that the House of Representatives are totally replaced every two years so they are constantly in touch with the people and campaigning (plus given more control over money matters) while the Senate is a rotating 1/3 every two years and given things more in line with long-term stability, ratifying nominations for certain positions and ratifying treaties, for example.

We are ruled by law. They (whoever they are) cannot arbitrarily make Amazon or E-Bay do something unless it is under Theys jurisdiction and there is a law or rule written down and legally approved before the deed was done. Otherwise we live at the whim of whoever is in power. There is no freedom in that.

 

[OldGuy43]

The Founding Fathers on Democracy:

Benjamin Franklin: When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers: We are a Republican Government, Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy...it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.

John Adams: Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.

James Madison: 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 death.

John Quincy Adams: The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.

Thomas Jefferson: The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Benjamin Franklin (maybe): Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

James Madison: Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.

John Adams: That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the world.

Thomas Jefferson: All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that through the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

John Witherspoon: Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state - it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.

James Madison: We may define a republic to be - a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it: otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic

 

[jackb]

This photo from today's Times Union just about broke my heart. A local Army Reserve unit is deploying to the Middle East; obviously this five year old little girl does not want her dad to go. When I ask myself why, or what for, I fail to come up with an answer. Your tax dollars at work for sure.

JackB