“The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better.”

A great start. Law brings order by defining freedom and liberty. Organization, contrary to law, destroys freedom and liberty by compelled compliance, license, theft of any kind including that of the noble laborer's fruit (slavery) victimless crimes, forced ID/insurance/charity, etc.

Law and organization are two sides of the same coin. The folks in the wiild west did not feel free until they organized and established law and put the roddys and outlaws into their proper place. Liberty is not insensitive/ideological opposition to the idea of organization/government.

The key points are 'exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, and coercion.' Human nature dictates that we will associate and organize. However, collective power is often usurped by a tyrant's will, and the collective power is used to enrich the tyrant further to the detriment of the collective itself. Voluntary association is protected, but monopolistic or involuntary coercion is absolutely NOT protected in a free republic. The rights of the many do not exceed the rights of the individual --and vice versa.

Good Archer and I think your rationale has to include the fact that the several governments of these states, their communities and the nation are voulutary associates of at least 51% or 50.1% of the people who have the right but not necessarily a very heavy mandate to run things the way they want them to be run always being sensitive of the 49.9% who may turn on them at any time.

Wow, Van Hayek at his best.

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.

Logan did our founding fathers (now it seems we only have fondling fathers) put in this system that refer by rule of a majority vote or did it just fall out of the sky. Do you get my point. This is a fundamental question. Did the Constitution come into being by the operation of some beneficent minority or by the majority vote of the American People in Congress Assembled. I think the answer is unambiguous and I await your reponse.

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.

Logan you da waffler. States can not have representatives only people can. So called republican government rammed down the throats of the people should be overthrown where ever it is encountered. Any one like the Islamic Republic types or any other republic type that wants to enforce its God given dictums on the peoples should be weill should be something.

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

Waffler, you are dead WRONG! You must know next to nothing about political philosophy. The reason that so many countries use the term republic is because it is actually the best form of government. They use it to claim that their government is great, but that doesn't actually mean it is. However, I am blown away that you would reject the idea in favor of democracy. Democracy is only slightly better than tyranny. For goodness sake go read some books!

Logan you have taken on an agenda that is a house of cards. In order to keep the house from falling you tell have truths. The Constitutional Assembly may have been totally appointed by some strong man in any given state or in all of the states but once in Philadelphia the debate, compromises and votes were done by majority rule. Now the Constitution once ratified allowed each state to have two senators and a number of reprsentatives based on the population within that state, free men and indentured servants , counted man for man, and slaves to be counted as 3/5 ths of a man. So obviously if the state had no popoulation in had no representatives. If it only had trees and a governor yes it could have two senators so in that sense the "state" trees and land could have a presence in the Senate. When the country acquired territory the Federal Government appointed territroial governors. When the territroy gained sufficient population it could then form a state and have reprsentatives. It could not be a state until it had people nor have reprsentatives or senators until it had people, thus a "state" cannot have reprsentation if it does not have people. You seem to have read a lot of philosophy have you ever studied logic.

Ben a republican form of government is any government that is not a monarchy, check any dictionary. The word today is basically a throw away word, it is meaningless in describing the way that a people go about the business of governing themselves. Thus Cuba, and North Korea are dictatorship Republics, China is a one party dictatorship Republic. France is a representative democratic Republic. Al Qaida wishes to establish Islamic Republics throughout the Muslim world. Ben what is the benefit of throwing this word around. You would be better to explain exactly what it is you desire your government or a "correct" or "ideal" republican government to be. In the 1780's I believe most of the world took the term to mean as Lincoln said 87 years later, "a government of, by and for the people". Yes books are good for us to read. But we should be able to syncretize, digest and make the knowledge ours rather than just regurgitating propaganda.

Waffler, you've probably noticed that I've stayed out of this and I won't go any further than this. I understand your slave mentality, the government of democracy being your sacred religion that wants to brutalize everyone else. I will explain one more time for you. Democratic process is not the same as a Democracy. When a Representative Republic, such as was the U.S. and the several related State Republics, implements a democratic process, a majority somewhere, even if that's agreed to be 10 percent or a non-directly representative majority body, comes together and figures out how to best secure inalienable law, life, liberty, property, happiness, authority, rights, privileges, etc of the individual sovereign. If a sovereign individual can not do a certain thing to his neighbor, neither can his representative in a collective body. The elected Representative represents the sovereign individual. In a Democracy, the slaves vote for an individual to represent the omnipotent State. The State (mob) then vain claims the ability to create law and does so to protect itself. In a Democracy compelled compliance, license, theft - including that of the inferiors labored fruit, forced ID/insurance/charity, no public expressions of competing religions, torture for information, habeas corpus suspension, endow property title as averse to Alodium freehold, etc. etc. etc. do now exist. In the guaranteed Republic lost, none of such could exist. As I've stated before, after all the differences that have been so brilliantly given here, even Helen Keller would have seen and heard the difference. Only a religion that exalts a society of slaves could not understand the difference.

The reason a select few got together and formed our constitution rather than put it up for the public to decide by a majority is simple. It would have been a disaster assuming it ever got finished at all. Same principal applies to our "democracy" put every thing up for the entire public to vote on and nothing worth while ever would get done. Our present "leaders" are getting more and more of followers of polls. This is defeating the safeguards that the originators of our republic created. It is why we are seeing so much more bad legislation and control of public policy by the press.

Warren you are so mean spirited towards your fellow man. If that is what you think about your neighbors what has actually made you so special that you are different than them. Democracy takes faith and yes the "mob" (I think it is used as insult here and not very intelligently) may sway the pendulum back and forth and ideas and policy may seem to vacillate but there are some safeguards against that. We have been having this discussion for a long time. Logan and Mike, two stalwarts of the word and supposed system of Republic have admitted several posts ago that the USA is a democracy at least at the present time, if not in there opinion meant to be that way. It took them a long time to even admit that. I believe historically that a Republic and a Democracy are the same thing. The difference they wish to make it appears to me is that they wish to place slogans or natural laws over the heads of the people. Not unlike Totalitarian Governments, read Animal Farm. Now there are some slogans or natural laws I ascribe to: LIFE, LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. But I ask you this fundamental question if a body of free people wish to change something, pass a law etcetera but are then told to look up at the slogan or natural law which some dead and gone folks put there (Like Lenin and Stalin) and are told "these things cannot be changed" are these folks truly FREE. I think not. I will take democracy every time, and contrary to your feeling the pendulum may swing in ways that you might even like on occasion Warren.