Yet another example against democracy.

Waffler--it's your freedom to do so, but for the sake of us who actually study this stuff, don't talk about what you don't know.

Anon, it was said tongue-in-cheek, I actually agree with Lincoln -- or whomever this quote is attributed to.

Lincoln was a damned fool, what's the "Republic" nonsense, eh Waffler? Man, should we have lost our "Republic" we would be ruled by kings right now! Lincoln had no idea what he was talking about-- we wouldn't have lost our Republic, because we're a democracy! ..shakes head..

Wow, I dunno about all of that, but it would be nice for Article IV Secion 4 to be taught again in our public schools. It seems to have escaped the public mindset.

LOL, So, eh, Waffler... Can you explain to me how existentialism came to the conclusion that philosophy is a waste of time?! Sounds like a flight from philosophy. So funny how all the idiots who try to reason their departure from philosophy have to use philosophy to show their stupidity. Yes, Waffler, I'm sure you're a real boy and a somebody too...

If this nation be destroyed, it will be through suicide from those who have failed to know what it takes to keep freedom alive.

While fiat currency can only be used as a de facto means of exchange that will once bust with inflation, it will never replace the intrinsic value and security of having a gold and silver backed currency.

Wow, anyone else want to field this one and expound on Article I Section 3?

It's a common fallacy that democracies hold a monopoly on voting or "voice of the people" systems; historically, republics have also shared in the ability to elect representatives. There are two kinds of democracies: direct and representative. The common fallacy is that we're a representative democracy, but this is not true as well--the constitution was not structured this way. There are also several forms of republics; however, ours was established on laws that the founders saw existed outside the rule of the majority--laws that would protect the minority, no matter what the majority said. Things were to be done BY the majority, so long as they didn't infringe upon these natural rights and laws. Our constitution states specifically that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." (Article IV, Section 4). The fact that we're a republic was very much planned; nothing fell "out of the sky." The Articles of Confederation very much prove the founder's disdain for democracies, although the Articles failed miserably. Someone can correct me, but I believe the delegates were representative from the states, not the people themselves (much like the dichotomy between the original House of Representatives and the Senate). A reading of the constitution shows the strenuous measures that the founders took to take the electing powers OUT of the direct hands of the people--the only branch of government to be elected directly by the voice of the people, per the original constitution (before the 17th Amendment), was the House of Representatives. The Senate was voted by the states, the President was voted by other delegates, and to-date the Judges have never been chosen by the voice of the people. This is clearly not a "democracy," wherein all things are done by the direct or representative voice of the people. The movement over the last 100 years has democratized our system, but this was not the original formation. The constitution came into operation, and was ratified, not directly by the people, but by the particular state's representatives--it was the states that gave direct orders for the delegates to only "reform" the Articles of Confederation, not the people; however, as we know, the delegates reformed it right out of existence. So, the answer was that it was neither a majority "of the American People in Congress Assembled" nor by "some beneficent minority," but by the representatives of the states.

Waffler, I do believe you have a firm and basic understanding of democracy-- it quite nearly scares me. You're right, in a democracy, the majority of 50.1% must be "sensitive" to the 49.9%, because if that table ever changed at that 49.9% obtained the majority vote, then it would retaliate against the new minority. If you look at democracy for what it IS (mobocracy)--rather than what you want it to be (the protection of the people)--you'll discover the basic flaws of such a system. Democracy states that if 6 men vote to strip the clothes off 4 men, then it can be done. That's what is basically and fundamentally wrong with democracy! Democracy is fundamentally, philosophically, intrinsically, and politically based on the idea that "law" is made by the will of the majority. A Republic, as understood by our founders, rejected this basis of government, and stated that law is NOT derived by the majority, but certain rights and laws existed before governments were enacted by man. Under such an understanding it was accepted that 6 men could NOT--by virtue of being in the majority--violate the rights of the 4 men to keep their clothes, because it violated certain inherent rights and laws that existed outside the majority of the 6 men. This does NOT mean that those 4 men were in power or that the minority is greater than the majority, it simply means there are certain things the majority cannot do. In a democracy, the majority can change, at will, any law protecting the minority, because such laws were solely enacted by the majority; hence, such laws can be taken away by the majority. Our Republic was established on human/inalienable rights and laws that exist outside the rule of the majority. So, while our Republic was structured to conduct its affairs according to the "will of the people," it also operates under the understanding that the minorities are protected, not because the majority says they are protected, but because the individuals that make up the minority/majority have rights and laws that existed before there was a minority/majority. Hopefully I've stated this more clearly to establish the fundamental difference.

Just like with science, simple principles are necessary to understanding more complex ideas. A physicist would not be able to properly define or speculate upon the characteristics of the universe if he disregarded the principle and natural law of gravity. Newton had to come before Einstein and Hawking, just as certain men had to lay the foundation in understanding for Newton to lend his own postulates. Gravity has been around since before man had language, but it wasn't until science had come so far that Newton was able to grasp the theories of gravity and advanced calculus. Language also had to evolve. As Robert said, words (language) exist because of meaning. Augustine wasn't a "greater" thinker because he came before Aquinas, nor was Machiavelli a greater thinker because he came before Locke; however, because of the evolution of thought, Locke could not cognate the "state of nature" had not Calvin, Luther, or Machiavelli set their limits with their own philosophies. Calvin, Luther, and Machiavelli could not have defined their limits if there hadn't been Augustine or Aquinas, and Augustine and Aquinas couldn't have set their limits without Jesus Christ, Socrates, Aristotle, or Plato, ad infinitum. The truth is, we CAN redefine the terms of the ancients and set them on our own terms, the problem does not lie in this fact. The problem is not in redefining terms for our understanding, but in using such redefined terms to rewrite history. It is only honest if we redefine terms to explain the meaning around us, so long as we remember what it once meant in its own understanding. It has been said that it is nearly mathematically impossible to reform the circumstances that brought about our American Revolutionary War, because the evolution of thought and the number of men who shared like ideas converged upon that one space and time to produce the results of this glorious nation. Such is the case with many ideas, as the evolution of thought converges upon one man to create a new theory, definition, or idea. As language evolves and as new ideas are presented to society there are portions of history that are always left behind. As per the notion of natural law, the fact is we don't exist upon those terms anymore--language and understanding have progressed to the point that such definitions and ideas have become antiquated in our society. This doesn't, however, necessarily mean that yesterday's definitions won't work in today's society, because man is not a result of merely natural pressures, but of choice. Man is a rational being that can choose its reality. While the evolution of thought converged upon the likes of Locke and Rousseau to purport the limits of the "state of nature", society, by choice, has chosen to redefine and subsequently leave those terms behind. Man, today, can think and reason--but the adage is the same, we ignore history's lessons at our peril. What has made men like Emerson, Locke, Machiavelli, Augustine, and Socrates great thinkers? It is their ability to adhere to the principles of history--they retained focus and established their theories on what HAD been, not what they WISHED had been. As I have personally talked with countless numbers of philosophers and political scientists, I search widely in vain to find such men who will accept history for what it WAS. While man retains the ability of properly building upon the postulates of Locke's theories of the state of nature and natural law, man has chosen to ignore Locke's limits and merely redefine the postulates on his own terms. This is his right to do, so long, as I have said, he does not try to rewrite history. It is absolutely accurate that man has the ability, right, and duty to disagree with the ancients or to build upon them towards greater ideas, after all, that's what they did themselves--this is what MADE them great. But, like Emerson says, the ancients have been misunderstood-- and I would add, regretfully, unduly, and unsubstantially, redefined.

Emerson is one of my heroes. Philosophy, in order to be philosophy, requires two voices: (1) the questioning voice that is continually pondering upon all aspects of the world around, and (2) the voice of limits that finds the rational bounds of the ideas proposed by the first voice. Should either of these two voices become silent then philosophy ceases to exist and ideology becomes present. Ideology merely proclaims that real truth is already absolutely found--or will never be found at all--and then seeks to convert the masses without any evidence to back up their side. Emerson is not an ideologist. Emerson, like Descartes, was frustrated at people who simply follow what society (or "little statesmen and philosophers and divines") tells them to follow -- Emerson is clearly speaking against ideologists who blindly follow the claims of historical giants, because they are considered as intellectual giants. A full reading of Emerson's works shows that he borrows from many philosophers, albeit he was able to understand the limits as proposed by these philosophers and then apply them to the world around him. A fundamental principle in understanding philosophy is the evolution of thought. Ideas are building blocks that borrow from history. Language defines these ideas; however, time is the universal solvent of language, whereas time indefinitely changes the definitions of words and phrases as people and culture encounter new situations and paradigms. The greatest philosophers built upon the thoughts, concepts, and ideas that preceded them. Each new thought required an old thought to be left behind. The ancient philosophers are vital to understanding our own culture, because the evolution of their influence is what has created our culture. Only little minds would define yesterday by today. Although pure objectivity is impossible, it is absolutely necessary to try as we gain a clearer look at who we are today by leaving our current understandings of the world around us to rest as we scope out the world that has proceeded us.

Waffler, I disagree against your assertion that God "should not be there and should be removed"; however, the historical context of your statement is spot on. Nietzsche was an interesting individual, and you're correct about his existentialism. In fact, it was his existential foundations that led him to hating democracy. Regardless of when or where "God" appeared in the pledge, the phrase itself directs that the common denominator that makes us a "nation" and not just a conglomerate of states is our fundamental belief in God. You can disagree with this, as I assume you do, but that's why it was placed there. I agree with the self accountability as purported by existential philosophy, although I disagree with the assertions that such accountability can ONLY be found in the absence of God. I'm sure you would disagree with me if I said that self accountability can only be truly found in the presence of God. But then we would be having the same argument of an old Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine. Oh, and thank you Ben for your comment, I agree.

As my last post on this thread, may I suggest, Waffler, to google "difference between republic and democracy," and see what pulls up? There are quite a few good mainstream articles that can give you a good foundation that obvious Archer, Mike, and me haven't been able to do. I'll even go so far as to suggest this article from World Net Daily: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42248

Waffler, your relying on the pledge is laughable. Nation and Republic are not synonymous! "Republic" refers to the type of government; "State" referees to the geographic territory under one sovereign political government; "Nation" refers to a common people, culture, or society that shares common characteristics, such as language, religion, belief, ethics, etc.. We are "one nation under God," because the common belief was that God was the common theme that made us a nation, not a conglomerate of the several states. Some states are called Nation-States, because they share one overwhelming large culture, language, and society: Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc. These European states, even though they are under federal system of the EU, still maintain their separate national characteristics from each other---mostly because of language and cultural tradition--and are considered Nation-States. You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. These are basic, basic, basic definitions learned the first week of Political Science 101 classes. You may have read, but you haven't comprehended a thing we've talked about, you're still using the "politico" definition of terms. We've told you that terms have been redefined over the last 200 years, and then you use modern definitions to try to disprove us? Do you know the history of WHY these terms have been redefined? As I've stated, ad nauseam, you have to define your terms--and everything you've ever stated, even in your last post, goes on the international definitions. To be completely accurate, over the last 50 years, the Political Science departments and Universities across the United States have adopted the International Relation's (International definition) of republics and democracies--but you wouldn't know that unless you accepted this to be the case and actually did you due diligence in studying the dictionary definitions of republics and democracies from over 100 years ago. Have you read Machiavelli? Aristotle? Plato? John Adams? James Madison? George Washington? If republics and democracies are really synonymous, like you say, then why do they differentiate between the two and condemn democracies? Why? It makes no sense! Why did Benjamin Franklin expressly say that they fought to keep America from being a democracy? Why did Benjamin Franklin say, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner, and freedom is a well armed lamb contesting the vote"? There is an OBVIOUS dichotomy of democracy and freedom. This is absolutely ridiculous! Of course, today, the definitions of the two are largely the same, because people like yourself are willfully and stubbornly ignorant to history. There's one thing to simply be unread, but there's another to willfully rebel against history! Why do you fight against what is plainly obvious? Waffler, I'll say it again, you are right in your current definition... Everything you say is spot on with what you'll read in a current dictionary--or even perhaps wikipedia--but you are being stubbornly ignorant to anything we've said that proves that the definitions you adhere to have only existed for the last 50-100 years--this redefinition is a result of globalization (not using this a bad term), wherein the United States has given up some of its culture, history, and definitions to be in line with the international community. If we want to argue the rightness or wrongness of such globalization, that's an entirely different argument, but for now -- just accept the facts pertaining to the definitions for what they are. I've found our conversations thusfar to be fun, to be sure, but as I said, this is becoming a little bit ridiculous.

Very well said...

Your comments to Mike concerning Tom Cruise are typical of someone who cannot win a debate, and is thus forced to use an ad hominem argument. If you can't beat the messenger, associate him with the perosn you think is the most wacko and send him off to his fate, eh?

Waffler, your bringing up of North Korea and Cuba (oh, and you forgot the People's Republic of China) as Republics is a common fallacy as brought up by Political Science 101 students. You have to remember, there are several definitions attached to the word "republic," just as there are several definitions associated with the term "democracy." Politically, it depends upon your level of analysis--are you speaking of republics on an individual, state, or international level? Are you speaking of the definitions as proposed 100 years ago, or the definitions that have been assigned to "republic" today? Every definition you have ever produced in mentioning a republic has been in reference to the most recent international text books or online dictionaries. Current students of International Relations would completely agree with your definition, while students of Political Science (domestic, mind you), would find certain fallacies in your given definitions; although, they would generally accept the foundation of your arguments, because the terms and definitions have become so convoluted that current students seldom know the difference; HOWEVER, the student of classic philosophy, political science, history, and the founders of the United States of America would severely disagree with the limits you propose in your definition of republics and democracies. Today's international definition of "Republic" merely means a "non-monarchy," which clearly defines the limits of China, North Korea, and Cuba, because they are, in fact, "non-monarchy" states. However, these mentioned states are not "republics" as defined by any definition pre-dating 1900. In fact, should you choose to attend any University today, you will find that the definitions of republics and democracies vary widely between the International Relations and the Political Science departments. Why the confusion? Because there sits a subcategory amidst these two schools of thought: the philosophy department. Sadly, even in the best Universities today, only teach the mechanics of government while leaving the ideas and foundations of history to rot. The substance of understanding history is severely lacking, wherein the students are not being taught in the traditions of their fathers, but merely in the applications of their peers. This is the base reason why there has been a transition from the foundations of America's Republic into our new American Democratic Empire.

Waffler, I think you're still failing to see the whole picture with the Republic vs Democracy thing. The "right" to sue, in a Republic, is based on the notion of being "made whole" or "complete." Civilly, it's hard to put a fiscal amount to an emotional totality, but we try. I don't possibly see how you can perceive how those who advocate Republics can ever reduce an individual's freedom, while you claim that democracies increase his freedom in application... I'm quite dumbfounded, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You used the term "real property" -- I don't know if you know legally what you're talking about, unless you promote and agree with government owning everything. The term "real" came from feudal England where the King owned "real" title to all land in the entire kingdom -- the King apportioned blocks and segments of land to his subjects in what was legally known as "real estate." In other words, "real" is synonymous with "government owned." "Real property" is literally "government property;" "Real estate" is literally "government estate." Why don't you try and look that up sometime in an early version of Black's Law Dictionary and see what ya get. Archer is absolutely correct, as you just proved, as the government owns all "real" title to our vehicles, as per what's written on the title of every vehicle. You're just the beneficiary holding licensed title to drive the government's vehicle. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at concerning your minister friend, but the quote is absolute gibberish.

Waffler, your logical fallacy falls under a false analogy. You're basing your analogy on a false system; the system that Archer, Mike, and I are fighting against. To accept what you've said, we'd have to believe that law comes from the people by the will of the majority, and that the majority can protects its interests at the cost of the individual's free will. That is an antithetical philosophy to the foundation of our country. You can pick which philosophy you're adhering to, but such a philosophy as you propose was developed in Eastern civilizations and is the basis of socialism. Socialism, if you've done your due diligence, is based solely on democracy: the will of the majority's law over the rest. Whereas Western thought establishes the individual as the basis of society, Eastern thought (which evolved into democratic socialism) establishes the majority as the basis of society. What you're saying only makes sense in a socialist paradigm. Of course the individual is not allowed to say "I'll do whatever I damn well please and ya'll will pay the consequences," but we must always support the foundation and tradition of our courts by allowing a man to be innocent until proven guilty. Pre-emptive laws, historically, have done little but make honest people honest and are based on the presupposition that people are guilty first before being proved innocent. Economics 101 states that seatbelt laws actually increase the number of accidents, because of people's perceived heightened security sensations they drive faster and more reckless than they normally would. Ask any economist and they will tell you the best possible way of providing for pre-emptive safety on the roads is to stick a knife on the steering wheel facing the driver -- this will surely be a deterrent to aggressive driving. The problem with seatbelt and helmet laws is that they are based on the idea that people will fail and that they are guilty of an accident before it happens -- this argument has actually held up in court. If our courts were set up correctly, then we would punish people who were negligent in their driving AFTER they have committed a crime. If the courts were actually set up to associate the correct punishment to the crime, we might actually be able to maintain our Republic amidst the slippery slope into Democracy.

Interesting quote, considering the source. I'm not quite sure what to rate this...

"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!!"

This is what I touched at on a previous posting. Adultery cannot be punished according to the law as a moral act; however, should the wife of an adulterer have a measurable amount of "damage" (also known legally as lost "equity"), then the law has full sway to judge in the matter. Morality is a matter of conscience, whereas "corporeal" (I'll use Mike from Norwalk's word) government can only rule in matters of "damage." This opens a can of worms for our current form of government, because of all the forms of victimless crimes the people accept and the government enforces. When I don't wear a seatbelt or helmet, whom am I harming? Can I be punished for NOT harming myself? Do I have the inherent and individual right to force another man to wear a helmet or buckle his seatbelt? No. So how do I magically obtain this right to delegate it to my representative for him to act in my place in making it a law? How does my delegate (Representative) obtain the ability of enforcing a law that cannot be given by the individual if not by usurpation? In a democracy, license and victimless crimes are legal, but in a Republic, such things cannot exist. I cannot personally make any man wear a seatbelt or helmet because there is no victim—thus, there is no course for government to intervene—this establishes the proper role of government. Excellent quote!

Waffler, it depends on what philosophy you adhere to. If you believe that there is no universal constant and that all things are relative to the particular society, then yes, you're absolutely correct. But if you believe that there are universal constants, even though you cannot see it, then you can accept that morality is a constant that can exist outside the scope of some men's perception. In truth there are certain things (laws and principles) that pertain to every creature upon this earth, regardless of society. In fact, it was these laws and principles that SHAPE every society. Philosophically, it was these laws and principles the founders sought to shape our government on. There is a natural power greater than societies' majority. While other societies had claimed that morality was a subjective element to what the majority stated, our founders built upon the idea that such things as "morality" were universal constants that could be logically defined within a "natural law" setting. The confusion comes with the redefinition of terms. Morality's definition today is not what it has always been.