Representative Democracy?

January 7, 2009

We repeatedly hear the media, and even our employees in government, refer to your political system as a “democracy.” However, anyone who has studied the theories behind government understand the differences, and they are many.

In a true democracy, 51% of the population can pass any law it wants – even if that law oppresses the other 49%. If you were a part of the 51% majority, you would think that everything was working just fine. If, however, you were a member of the 49% minority, you probably wouldn’t be so enthusiastic. In this sense, a true democracy can more descriptively be called a “mobocracy” – mob rule – tyranny by the masses.

Our system of government was intended to prevent this sort of tyranny, and in a sense, it does. But, what of the person whose beliefs are contradicted by legislation or actions of who “represent” him? Possible examples are legion, and I’m sure you can think of several that are your personal ‘hot topics.’ What about the war in Iraq? Our government’s blind support of anything that Israel does? The militarization of our local police forces? Ever-increasing surveillance of the citizens by the government? Criminalization of [some] drugs? Restrictions on firearms, and outright “gun bans?” Any or all of these are examples of things that you may consider evil, or just plain stupid, yet they are being done “in your name” by a government that claims to “represent” you. This amounts to tyranny by the elite few.

Unless you happen to be one of the few who actually agrees with the government’s actions, there is little difference to you if the action results from a law passed by 51% of the citizens, or from a few elites who claim to “represent” you. Tyranny by the masses, by the few, or by a single individual still amounts to tyranny, and to the victims, looks just about the same.

The founding fathers never intended for the federal government to hold any authority over individuals at all, except in VERY specific cases, which were spelled out in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8), and reinforced by the 9th and 10th Amendments. Yet, in less than 100 years, the federal laws have swelled from one book, to several shelves of books.

Ever wonder how there came to be a heavily-armed part of the Treasury Department called the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms)? The federal government is not granted authority over any of those three items, yet people who run afoul of federal laws regarding any of those three are routinely subjected to a full military assault, and often executed without the luxury of a trial. If you happen to be one of those liberty-minded free-thinkers who believes that people have the right to do with their bodies as they see fit without interference from the federal government, and that the people also have the right to own any firearms they want to defend themselves, then you may ignore the fact that your federal tax dollars (another issue) are going to regulate those very things.

If you are one of those intrepid souls who believes that our country has no business meddling in other countries’ affairs, then you tune out those who remind you that our federal tax dollars, as well as the lives of our youth, are being wasted in endless invasions and “peacekeeping missions.”

You strongly believe in the free market system of economics, and just shake your head at the rapid expansion of National Socialism in our country.

You certainly advocate free speech, yet when you listen to foreign news on your shortwave radio, you wonder why it is so very different than the news your hear on your local government-controlled media outlet. You also may wonder why the “amount” of “free speech” has been reduced in the past couple of years. Is it only because some moronic entertainer flashed her breast for a fraction of a second on public TV? Is it for that reason alone that the Iron Fist of the FCC silenced any media outlet that dared let an un-approved utterance air? What IS the FCC? Federal Communication Commission. An agency that exists solely to regulate COMMUNICATION. What is COMMUNICATION? The expression of an idea or concept. In other words – speech. The 1st Amendment reads in part: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” As Lenny Bruce once said: “If you can’t say ‘Fuck,’ you can’t say ‘Fuck the government.’ Now, not only can’t anyone say ‘fuck’ in the media, they can’t say ‘shit,’ as in “the government is taking the country down the “shitter.” And, as several people have found out, if you attempt to let your displeasure with the government be known at press conferences, interviews, or debates, you are likely to be tackled, roughed up, and arrested. And don’t mention it to anyone in an email message either. Now that the government has given itself the authority to monitor all emails, without a warrant, it will be up to them to decide when you have committed a crime. Especially now that it’s not necessarily what you say, but what you were thinking when you said it (thanks to ‘hate crime’ laws).

So much for the Bill of Rights. About the only one intact is the 3rd Amendment. It’s only a matter of time before you hear a knock on your door, and find your new “houseguest.”

Advertisements