[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse"

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Walter E. Williams --- What's Gone Wrong With Democracy
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 23, 2015
Author: Walter E. Williams
Post Date: 2015-03-23 14:35:49 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 19256
Comments: 96

Walter E. Williams

What's Gone Wrong With Democracy?

The Economist magazine recently published "What's gone wrong with Democracy ... and what can be done to revive it?" The suggestion is that democracy is some kind of ideal for organizing human conduct. That's a popular misconception.

The ideal way to organize human conduct is to create a system that maximizes personal liberty for all. Liberty and democracy are not synonymous and most often are opposites. In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison explained, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." Democracy and majority rule confer an aura of legitimacy and respectability on acts that would otherwise be deemed tyrannical.

Let's look at majority rule, as a decision-making tool, and ask ourselves how many of our life choices we would like settled by majority rule. Would you want the kind of car you own to be decided through a democratic process, or would you prefer purchasing any car you please? Ask that same question about decisions such as where you shall live, what clothes you purchase, what food you eat, what entertainment you enjoy and what wines you drink. I'm sure that if anyone suggested that these choices be subject to a democratic process, we would deem it tyranny.

Our Founders saw democracy as a variant of tyranny. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Alexander Hamilton said, "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

By the way, the word democracy appears in none of our founding documents.

The Founders of our nation recognized that we need government, but because the essence of government is force, and force is evil, government should be as small as possible. The Founders intended for us to have a limited republican form of government where human rights precede government and there is rule of law. Citizens, as well as government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society only to protect its citizens against force and fraud, but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. By contrast, in a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government deems it to be. Rights may be granted or taken away.

Alert to the dangers of majority rule, the Constitution's framers inserted several anti-majority rules. In order to amend the Constitution, it requires a two-thirds vote of both houses, or two-thirds of state legislatures to propose an amendment, and it requires three-fourths of state legislatures for ratification. Election of the president is not done by a majority popular vote, but by the Electoral College.

Part of the reason for having two houses of Congress is that it places an obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The Constitution gives the president a veto to thwart the power of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override the president's veto.

If you don't have time to examine our founding documents, just ask yourself: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag read to the democracy, or to the republic, for which it stands? Or, did Julia Ward Howe make a mistake in titling her Civil War song "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"? Should it have been "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy"?

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 93.

#10. To: tpaine (#0) (Edited)

Ok. So, Walter Williams has written an article against democracy. He spends a lot of time telling us how much the Founders detested democracy. That's swell.

They created a restricted-franchise republic that preserved special rights for a certain class (which completely erased the rights of a quarter of the population). Their system lasted for 72 years, then exploded in an orgy of blood.

The Founders' model was not a success, because they did not create a free country.

The model that came out of the "reset" of the 1860s was a more centralized oligarchy. And it doesn't work either.

So, the Founder's hated democracy and monarchy. They liked republics, so they founded one. It failed within a decade and was replaced by another one, which failed in three generations. We're in the fourth or fifth generation since the Civil War, and our current republic is falling apart as well.

What can we take from this all? Democracy doesn't work. Monarchy doesn't work. Republics don't work. Nothing works for very long.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-23   15:20:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Vicomte13 (#10)

"They created a restricted-franchise republic that preserved special rights for a certain class (which completely erased the rights of a quarter of the population)."

"Population" refers to people. Slaves weren't people. They were property. Just sayin' how it was.

Full rights were extended to those with the most to lose -- wealthy, adult, white males with property. Who in their right mind would allow women, the poor, and the uneducated to vote?

The Founders were wrong? Look around your "enlightened" society where everyone votes and tell me it's working.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-23   18:30:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#17)

"Population" refers to people. Slaves weren't people.

Art. 1, Sec. 2, Cl. 3:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The slaves were considered persons. The interest held in a slave was legaly considered a property interest, but that did not transform slaves into non-persons. They were each counted as one complete person in the census. By unanimous agreement of the States, for representation purposes in the Congress, only 60% of the aggregate of such persons was counted.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-23   20:55:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: nolu chan (#33)

"The slaves were considered persons."

Only for the apportionment of representatives and direct taxes.

And, technically, they were "other persons". They had no more rights than a table or chair.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-24   10:54:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: misterwhite (#49)

And, technically, they were "other persons". They had no more rights than a table or chair.

Which is why that system and its culture had to be destroyed. If it would not peaceful cede it power and stop committing evil, it had to be uprooted by force. And it was.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-24   11:31:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Vicomte13, misterwhite, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#52) (Edited)

Nolu Chan --- "The slaves were considered persons."

misterwhite ---- And, technically, they were "other persons". They had no more rights than a table or chair.

Vicomte13 --- Which is why that system and its culture had to be destroyed. If it would not peaceful cede it power and stop committing evil, it had to be uprooted by force. And it was.

To reiterate, Walter Williams points remain unrefuted: ----

-- "Our Founders saw democracy as a variant of tyranny. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Alexander Hamilton said, "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-24   13:06:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: tpaine (#54)

To reiterate, Walter Williams points remain unrefuted: ----

-- "Our Founders saw democracy as a variant of tyranny. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Alexander Hamilton said, "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

Refuted? No.

However, what the Founders set up, their Republic, WAS a horrendous tyranny. When a quarter of the population of a country are chained slaves, that country is a monstrous joke of a nation, hideously evil and worthy of destruction, not something to be PROUD of.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-24   13:23:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: Vicomte13 (#56)

--- what the Founders set up, their Republic, WAS a horrendous tyranny. When a quarter of the population of a country are chained slaves, that country is a monstrous joke of a nation, hideously evil and worthy of destruction, not something to be PROUD of.

--- What the Founders set up, our Republic, IS a tremendous success. despite the fact that a quarter of the population of a country were chained slaves, freed after nearly 80 years of a 'war on slavery'...

Our country is something to be PROUD of.

Your attitude towards our country is disgraceful.

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-24   13:37:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: tpaine (#58)

Your attitude towards our country is disgraceful.

My attitude is just. The country's history is what is disgraceful.

The Catholic Church also has a disgraceful past. But guess what? Catholics man up about it, are honest about it, admit the sins, and have fixed it. We don't DEFEND the evils of the past, we call them evil, and we call the men who committed them erroneous and sinful.

What is disgraceful is to look at a treasonous asshat like George Washington, standing there priggishly "for liberty", shooting down his own British countrymen to obtain this liberty, whingeing that slaves the British freed had to be RETURNED at the end of the war, and then holding slaves until the day he died, thereby making a joke out of any claim he fought for human liberty. He committed murder and treason in his own quest for personal power. He attained it: he died the wealthiest man in America, with a plantation still full of slaves. Flaming hypocrite.

Were we speaking of a Pope, the execrations would be hurled, and rightly too.

It is no different when we speak of a man who went out and killed thousands of people for "The proposition that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty..."

I hold Washington to the same standard that people (including me) hold the Popes of old. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. What those Popes and Washington did was disgraceful.

It is not disgraceful to call them out on it.

We had to have a Civil War and a million dead BECAUSE the Founders were greedy, weak men with feet of clay, hypocrites, who were willing to commit treason and kill their own countrymen in order to gain power, but who were not willing to strip down some of their own personal wealth in order to live up to what they declared.

And as a direct result of their fecklessness and the crappy and incomplete system they erected, it all fell into civil war two generations later with a million dead, and then apartheid for a century after that. We're STILL dealing with the overhang of their hypocrisy.

The Revolution, given its justification, was THE moment to wipe the slate of slavery clean and do it right. The French, after all, freed THEIR slaves (and their Jews) in THEIR Revolution. We could have also, but the slavers who commanded the Revolution here did not. They betrayed their own principles and left us a freakish Frankenstein of a system, towering in its evil and hypocrisy, that could not survive scrutiny on its own principles, and that DID NOT.

I am not disgraceful for telling the truth. Washington was disgraceful for having fought a revolution for freedom but then being a petty, greedy little asshole of a man - the wealthiest man in America could not bring himself to part with ownership of his slaves BECAUSE HE WAS A SMALL SPIRITED GREEDY LITTLE MAN.

The system that he and his comparably hobbled and morally crippled co- conspirators, Jefferson and the Rutledge and the other rich Southern slavers who won the revolution and were the nations leaders after the war - this system collapsed of its own illogic. An "empire of freedom" with a quarter of the population chained slaves? What a joke! What a FOUL DISGRACE OF A LAND. IT NEEDED to be destroyed, and it WAS, in Civil War.

Civil War was not necessary. Had the greedy little killers Washington and Jefferson and Rutledge been big men - had they been as BIG as hero-worshipping Americans make them out to be, then these shitstains of men would have taken the hit in their personal wealth and FREED THEIR OWN SLAVES in order to LIVE UP TO the principles for which they DECLARED THE RIGHT TO KILL MEN!

BUT THEY DID NOT!

Which means they were, IN FACT, the petty little men that I call them. The country they ripped away, so they could rule it themselves, like local Mafiosi holding men in chains, was such a ramshackle, crappy structure, so riddled with the incongruities that THEY LEFT THERE (because they were GREEDY and SMALL and would not free their slaves), that it fell apart "Four score and five" years later.

Nobody spares the corrupt, evil, contemptible Renaissance popes. They did great evil when they were SUPPOSED to be stewards of Good, stewards of God. Nobody gives them any quarter, and they don't deserve any.

The Declaration of Independence is a great document that declares lofty morals, indeed, perhaps the ONLY moral principles on which murderous rebellion CAN be justified. But then the drafters and ratifiers of the document DID NOT DO THAT. ALL they did was manage, with the help of the Kingdoms of France, Spain and Holland, to replace British rule with home rule. They didn't treat men as equal, ever, even during the Revolution. They didn't MEAN it. They merely SAID it as a pretext to cover over what was simply treason and insurrection.

The slaves remained chained. America wasn't a free country, even colorably, until 1865. And 1865 happened because of another war, not because the SYSTEM that the Founders made worked. It didn't work. The central corruption was there for the world to see, and could not be hidden.

The American Republic, with slavery, was a public disgrace from its declaration UNTIL the slaves were freed in 1865. THEN it had at least a CHANCE of being something worthy of praise. Before that? Pfffft.

You say my attitude is disgraceful. But I say the country itself was disgraceful until slavery ended, and the Founders were a disgrace. And I'm right.

Now you're going to bellow like idolators whose sacred cows have been gored. I'm burning idols that need to be burnt. Americans do not spare their criticism of the Popes of old, or the cardinals of the present, for the monstrous sins of the past or the pedophilia of the present. And they SHOULDN'T! For those men are goddamned disgraces in the Church of God, sullying that which was founded by Christ. I don't apologize for them. I criticize them too.

And I apply the same unsparing truth and clarity to the United States, a far lesser thing of lesser importance than the Church of God and Jesus Christ.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-24   14:03:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: Vicomte13 (#65)

You say my attitude is disgraceful. But I say the country itself was disgraceful until slavery ended, and the Founders were a disgrace. And I'm right.

No, I'd say you're quite demented about this subject.

Rave on, if you must.

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-24   16:22:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: tpaine (#72)

No, I'd say you're quite demented about this subject.

Rave on, if you must.

Oh, I shall. For mine is the voice of VICTORY. We won. My ideas won. Those with the opposite ideas were never persuaded, and are not persuadable.

You know that sign that VxH posts, about "permanent hostility". Well, that's me: I am a deadly enemy of slavers, segregationists, and those who attempt to impose or justify the imposition of those standards in society. Because of the evil that has done in our past, it had to be cut off in blood, and it WAS.

And that was a good thing.

However, the original lesson was not learned fully. And so once again, a century later, the forces were arrayed a second time. THIS time, the segregationists had the good sense to realize that they were outnumbered, outgunned and could not win, so they surrendered and did not fight. They murdered a few people, and rotted in prison or were executed for it. The rest sullenly submitted and still are in that state.

Occasionally on chat boards they poke up their faces. And I put the heel of my egalitarian boot right between their eyes every time they do it.

You're damned right I will rave on. The fundamental equality of all men before the law is not negotiable in any way. Those who seek it, urge it, or seek to defend it, at ANY point in the history of our republic, are my mortal enemies, and I will wage war on them in the present, and on their memory. They gave no quarter to their slaves, and I will give no quarter to them. And my side won all the wars and battles. My principles are the law now, not Washington's, with his divided mind about slavery. And not Lincoln's either, with his earnest desire for a White America. No. America always was, and always will be, a place of all people, all of them equal.

That's where we've come out, and that's where we SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALL ALONG. France got there with their Revolution. WE didn't. Why? Because of the moral weakness of our Founders, their greedy narrow self-interest.

We had to get there by killing their grandchildren in great numbers. That's their fault. They should have dealt with their own sins and not propagated them further. They were willing to MURDER the British soldiers over principle, but they refused to put the restraints upon themselves.

Unacceptable.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-24   16:31:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#74)

So, the Founder's hated democracy and monarchy. They liked republics, so they founded one. It failed within a decade and was replaced by another one, which failed in three generations. We're in the fourth or fifth generation since the Civil War, and our current republic is falling apart as well.

What can we take from this all? Democracy doesn't work. Monarchy doesn't work. Republics don't work. Nothing works for very long.

Vicomte13 posted at #10

You posted the above yesterday.. --- Today: ---

The fundamental equality of all men before the law is not negotiable in any way. Those who seek it, urge it, or seek to defend it, at ANY point in the history of our republic, are my mortal enemies, and I will wage war on them in the present, and on their memory. They gave no quarter to their slaves, and I will give no quarter to them. ---- And my side won all the wars and battles. -- - My principles are the law now, not Washington's, with his divided mind about slavery. And not Lincoln's either, with his earnest desire for a White America. No. America always was, and always will be, a place of all people, all of them equal.
Dementia anyone?

tpaine  posted on  2015-03-24   17:20:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: tpaine, Vicomte13 (#78)

[Vicomte13] America always was, and always will be, a place of all people, all of them equal.

That is an ideal and a political sales pitch. No such place has existed in the recorded history of man.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-24   18:03:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: nolu chan (#82)

That is an ideal

It is.

What is not an ideal is this: You shall not kill.

THAT is a commandment, from God, the one and only.

For a land such as America to gain its independence, a war must be fought against the established legal order. Wars mean killing, lots and lots of it. They mean breaking the law of God.

If you're going to initiate war, which is to say, if you're going to upset the peaceful order and start killing people to have your way, you had better have a justification strong enough to justify the killings you will inevitably commit. You do not have to justify them to other men - men are always ready to kill other men for advantage. No, you have to justify the killing before God. God is your judge, jury and executioner.

What, then, justifies killing on such a large scale before God? The desire to have local government? Nowhere does God suggest that a form of government is worth any bloodshed. Because of taxes? God said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars."

What then? To prevent killing? Yes. If the government that rules you is murderous and marauding, you have the right before God to kill its agents and overthrow it to stop the murder. However, the British government was not marauding the colonists. There were taxes, and there were impositions, but even the so called Boston Massacre involved a riot scene, not a case of cold-blooded imperial murder (and the death toll was low).

What about to end slavery? To break people free of their chains of servitude? Well, yes. Under God's law, to kidnap a man and sell him was a death penalty offense.

In 1775, the Bostonians staged a revolt over nothing that could justify killing. The war spread. There was no particular justification for it that would stand up before God. The Americans didn't want to pay taxes, some members of a mob got shot in a standoff situation. The government was repressing guns. None of these things justifies killing under the laws of God.

But then the delegates met in Philadelphia and made their case to the world: "We hold these truths to be self-evident," they wrote, "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Well, now, those are fine pretty words, but contained in two of them are genuine rights before God that would justify rebellion and bloodshed: the right to live, and the right to be free.

By this point, the British had responded to the theretofore unjustifiable rebellion with excessive force of their own, particularly the unleashing of Indian tribes on the frontiers against American colonists.

To protect yourself and others from death justifies violence, and to throw off the chains of slavery: these things justify a war, and killing.

However, for those justifications to truly exist, you have to actually mean them. You have to DO the things you claimed as the basis for your right to kill. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite. God excoriated hypocrites.

The Americans killed their own countrymen, by the thousands, over a claimed right to liberty as equal men before God. But they clamped down the chains of slavery on a quarter of the population, and kept them there.

Suddenly, their justification is gone. Now they're just killers again, killers seeking their own fortune, seeking their own power. The "freedom" they claimed was not the right to live as free, equal men. It was, rather, the right to live without taxes they didn't control, the right to run their own show, and the right to continue to grind their boots into the backs of other men.

A quarter of the population were slaves. They were kept in chains throughout the war. Washington demanded the return of all slaves liberated by the British. "All men are created equal?": "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? For the whites only. The justification dissolves into farce, into rank hypocrisy, and those who rebelled and killed, and those who led them, reduce themselves thereby to the role of rank murderers and oppressors, nothing more.

So yes, that notion of a place of all people, all equal, was indeed an ideal And it is the only ideal that justifies the existence of the country in the first place. Without THAT ideal, Washington and his ilk were simply murderers, America was a rebellious province, and the just outcome would have been for the United States to have been destroyed like the Confederacy was, and its leaders hanged as murders and traitors, which they were.

Those ideals are everything. Without ideals that are true and just, there is never a justification for using violence. America proclaimed a just ideal, but didn't even try to live up to it. This doesn't seem to perturb you.

Once upon a time, when I was a young man I joined the military to defend this country. The Cold War was on, the Soviets were a menace to liberty everywhere: so we perceived them, not unjustly. People like me will serve an ideal. Take away an ideal, though, or render it a sham (as the Republican Party has done with their repeated campaigning on a set of ideals which they then swiftly betray once in office), and you will get mercenaries, but you will not get men like me. I'll risk my life and fight for an ideal. I won't do either for an abstract "form of government" that serves no ideal but power and money, nor for a "flag". A flag is a piece of cloth. What matters is the ideals that move the men who carry it. Have the wrong ideals, and you can go hang yourself in your pretty flag.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-24   21:11:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: Vicomte13 (#84)

God said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars."

Show me where God said the fruits of your labor are Caesars. Jesus was being clever. He wasn't saying Give to Caesar. He said give to Caesar what is Caesars. He never once ever said give unto Caesar.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-25   0:39:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: A K A Stone (#87)

Show me where God said the fruits of your labor are Caesars. Jesus was being clever. He wasn't saying Give to Caesar. He said give to Caesar what is Caesars. He never once ever said give unto Caesar.

Jesus himself paid the Temple Tax.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-25   11:14:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: Vicomte13 (#91)

libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...i?ArtNum=3056&Disp=27#C27

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-25   11:26:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 93.

        There are no replies to Comment # 93.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 93.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com