# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Ron Paul: Democracy is not Freedom

## FrankRep

*Ron Paul, CPAC 2011 Straw Poll Winner*


*Democracy Is Not Freedom*


Rep. Ron Paul, MD
February 7, 2005


“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

~ Ronald Reagan

We've all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena.*** Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell's view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

*The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom.* Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our _republican_ constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They're certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders' belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn't be called taxes, they'd be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive — and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state — but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today's Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

he fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.


***Politics and the English Language, 1946.

----------


## FrankRep

*Ron Paul: A Republic, Not a Democracy*
http://www.free-press.biz/usa/A-republic.htm

*Dr. Ron Paul: A Republic, If You Can Keep It*
http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/republic.html

_______



Walter Williams


Like the founders of our nation, I find democracy and majority rule a contemptible form of government.

*Democracy Versus Liberty*


Walter Williams | The New American 
23 February 2011

____


*The American Form of Government: Constitutional Republic*





*The New American: A Republic, if You Can Keep It*
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...ou-can-keep-it

----------


## Yieu

Hate is a strong word.  I'm not sure Ron Paul would use it.  It also looks bad to those who don't get what democracy really means, and could be used as a smear (using the word hate).  I like the title of the article better.

----------


## hazek

I also fking HATE democracy! Just the thought of living in a democracy makes me feel sick to my stomach and anytime I hear cheers for democracy or people mindlessly demanding democracy it makes my head want to explode!

I WANT FREEDOM.

And no! I think hate is actually putting it mildly.

----------


## Yieu

What I mean is that the word hate is a very negative word and can look bad, so some people try to avoid it.  Democracy is not freedom, for sure, it is the tyranny of the majority.  But the word hate can be used as a smear.

----------


## hazek

Btw look at this bull$#@! explanation of the word republic: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic

No wonder sheeple are clueless if even the dictionaries have it wrong..

----------


## FrankRep

*The Founding Fathers on Democracy:*


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

"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 deaths."
*- James Madison*

Democracy is the most vile form of government
*- James Madison*

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

----------


## Yieu

> *The Founding Fathers on Democracy:*
> 
> 
> "The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."
> *- John Quincy Adams*
> 
> "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 deaths."
> *- James Madison*
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with them.  I suppose my point was one of tact.  The thread title reads like it was written at MSNBC.  It's not a good way to win hearts and minds.

----------


## awake

Democracy will take its rightful place in the trash bin of history right next to feudalism and monarchy.

----------


## Dr.3D

Oh but the liberal media porn just loves democracy.   They tell everybody, the United States military is spreading democracy all over the middle east.

----------


## romacox

While attending college in the 60′s I was taught that the U.S. was a “Democratic Republic”.  My Father would  rebuttal by saying, “no, we are a Republic".  Thinking my professors, and text books  knew more than my father, I dismissed his words.

But in more recent times, I notice students are being taught that the U.S. is a Democracy…leaving out Republic all together.  My curiosity began to get the best of me, and I began digging into old text books and documents.  I discovered that in the 60′s (and even earlier)  the U.S. educational system began rewriting history, and changing the meaning of words (like democracy and welfare): my father was right!

As a result I cringed when I heard people use the word Democracy synonymously with Republic, but said little about it.  It was not until I saw the price of death Egyptians were paying for "democracy"/ mob rule in which workers now protest government for higher wages that I realized the price for silence.  

_Thank you for starting this thread_

----------


## FrankRep

> But in more recent times, I notice students are being taught that the U.S. is a Democracy…leaving out Republic all together.  My curiosity began to get the best of me, and I began digging into old text books and documents.  I discovered that in the 60′s (and even earlier)  the U.S. educational system began rewriting history, and changing the meaning of words (like democracy and welfare): my father was right!


It's all a big game to transform America. Your dad is correct.

*Democracy in Schools Leads to Socialism*
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...s-to-Socialism

*Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld: The Socialist Revolution Via Public Education*
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...uel-Blumenfeld

----------


## romacox

> It's all a big game to transform America. Your dad is correct.
> 
> *Democracy in Schools Leads to Socialism*
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...s-to-Socialism
> 
> *Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld: The Socialist Revolution Via Public Education*
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...uel-Blumenfeld


I totally agree.  The Egyptians were fed this misinformation so they themselves would  open the doors for anarchy leaving a vacuum that world banks (One World Governance ) will be only too happy to fill (one world currency and all). 

 Also the *same misinformation has been fed to us*, and Wisconsin is the tip of the ice burg.   *In a Republic, teachers would not be working for the government, but for a free enterprise run by the parents of the children they teach .*

----------


## therepublic

> I totally agree.  The Egyptians were fed this misinformation so they themselves would  open the doors for anarchy leaving a vacuum that world banks (One World Governance ) will be only too happy to fill (one world currency and all). 
> 
>  Also the *same misinformation has been fed to us*, and Wisconsin is the tip of the ice burg.   *In a Republic, teachers would not be working for the government, but for a free enterprise run by the parents of the children they teach .*


and Rothchilds famous quote: "Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws."  Looks like they are replacing the word "nations" with "world".

----------


## Echoes

> *The Founding Fathers on Democracy:*
> 
> 
> "The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."
> *- John Quincy Adams*
> 
> "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 deaths."
> *- James Madison*
> 
> ...


and also Ben Franklin's great quote:

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner."

----------


## therepublic

In Greece they are setting police on fire...that is anarchy. That is not what I want for my children and grandchildren. 

 I do not think the Federal Reserve cares who ends up controlling the world government (Museum brotherhood, Christians, communists, socialists, ext) as long as they (the Fed) control the world currency. 

However I do not think they want a Republic because, in a Republic, they would not exist.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> In Greece they are setting police on fire...that is anarchy. That is not what I want for my children and grandchildren. 
> 
>  I do not think the Federal Reserve cares who ends up controlling the world government (Museum brotherhood, Christians, communists, socialists, ext) as long as they (the Fed) control the world currency. 
> 
> However I do not think they want a Republic because, in a Republic, they would not exist.


Actually, Islam forbids usury, so there's zero chance of a Caliphate. Fed/central banks wouldn't exist if Islam took hold around the world.

----------


## therepublic

> Actually, Islam forbids usury, so there's zero chance of a Caliphate. Fed/central banks wouldn't exist if Islam took hold around the world.


You are correct that Islam forbids usury.
u·su·ry  (yzh-r)
n. pl. u·su·ries
1. The practice of lending money and charging the borrower interest, especially at an exorbitant or illegally high rate.
2. An excessive or illegally high rate of interest charged on borrowed money.
3. Archaic Interest charged or paid on a loan.

  But Islamic countries do currently trade in fiat currency.  Rothchilds famous quote: "Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws."

----------


## BuddyRey

I'm not fond of democracy either, but I fail to see how republicanism is that much better or even substantially different.  They're just two different ways of arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, IMO.

----------


## therepublic

> I'm not fond of democracy either, but I fail to see how republicanism is that much better or even substantially different.  They're just two different ways of arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, IMO.


We lost our Republic on December 23, 1917 when the Federal Reserve was established. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...e-Constitution (fiat money is unconstitutional)

P.S. I think the only strong opposition to the Federal Reserve (with the exception of Ron Paul and his supporters) is the Chinese government, and that is only because they would like to control the world currency themselves.

----------


## erowe1

> and also Ben Franklin's great quote:
> 
> "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner."


One important difference being that those other quotes are genuine.

----------


## FrankRep

*Utah Legislature: America is a Republic, not a Democracy!*

Salt Lake City Tribune
Mar 8, 2011

A bill that would ensure Utah students learn the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic  not a democracy  has passed both Houses of the Legislature and is now headed to the governor for his signature.

----------


## RonPaulRocksMyWorld

> *Utah Legislature: America is a Republic, not a Democracy!*
> 
> Salt Lake City Tribune
> Mar 8, 2011
> 
> A bill that would ensure Utah students learn the U.S. is a compound constitutional republic — not a democracy — has passed both Houses of the Legislature and is now headed to the governor for his signature.


Normally, I am completely against legislating what children should be taught in school but I would vote for this if I were a state senator/representative.

----------


## Nastynate

> We lost our Republic on December 23, 1917 when the Federal Reserve was established. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...e-Constitution (fiat money is unconstitutional)
> 
> P.S. I think the only strong opposition to the Federal Reserve (with the exception of Ron Paul and his supporters) is the Chinese government, and that is only because they would like to control the world currency themselves.


Actually I would argue we lost our republic April 8, 1913 because the 17th amendment. We turned from having the states being represented to the senate turning into a more powerful vote than the house. But the Federal Reserve was no friend to the republic either.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Democracy will take its rightful place in the trash bin of history right next to feudalism and *monarchy*.


I doubt monarchy will ever be in the trash bin (at least, it will outlast republicanism).  It's more stable than republicanism or democracy.  Eventually, all these sort of vertically oriented, top-down power structures will consume themselves and humanity will have to become civil and order itself voluntarily-if not by desire, by the impossibility of stratified, top-down structures of power which lend themselves well to corruption.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Actually I would argue we lost our republic April 8, 1913 because the 17th amendment. We turned from having the states being represented to the senate turning into a more powerful vote than the house. But the Federal Reserve was no friend to the republic either.


It could be argued that the 16th amendment was more destructive than the 17th, but these amendments were only written a short time apart, so it's difficult to say for sure.

----------


## 2young2vote

So was the USA ever a real constitutional republic or was it some variation of one?

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> Democracy will take its rightful place in the trash bin of history right next to feudalism and monarchy.


+1

Can't come soon enough.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> I'm not fond of democracy either, but I fail to see how republicanism is that much better or even substantially different.  They're just two different ways of arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, IMO.


Very true.  Anarcho capitalism is the Future. Hopefully, the near future.

----------


## FrankRep

> Very true.  Anarcho capitalism is the Future. Hopefully, the near future.


I predict bigger government.

----------


## FrankRep

bump

----------


## Dr.3D

Thanks for posting the picture of that shirt.   I bought one and it's strange how many people believe I hate the United States when they read it.  I try to tell them I just don't believe democracy is the right way to go and they mock me, saying I am being unpatriotic.

----------


## Travlyr

> So was the USA ever a real constitutional republic or was it some variation of one?


The republic worked at a livable level for many people for 50 years, or so. At the same time, it was a time of racial, ethnic, and class hatred, so many people were not allowed to participate.

The real loss of the republic came at the time of the Civil War. Currency was debased and Wall Street took over.

----------


## FrankRep

> Thanks for posting the picture of that shirt.   I bought one and it's strange how many people believe I hate the United States when they read it.  I try to tell them I just don't believe democracy is the right way to go and they mock me, saying I am being unpatriotic.


Ron Paul is anti-Democracy as well. :-)

----------


## onlyrp

> Ron Paul is anti-Democracy as well. :-)


but he's not anti-voting

----------


## bolil

someone said, I forget who, "Democracies fail when they grant themselves endless access to the public treasury."  I think it was Solon but I am not sure.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The republic worked at a livable level for many people for 50 years, or so. At the same time, it was a time of racial, ethnic, and class hatred, so many people were not allowed to participate.
> 
> The real loss of the republic came at the time of the Civil War. Currency was debased and Wall Street took over.


That was the complete descent into fascist Imperialism.  I would argue that the end of the first republic came with the Alien and Sedition Acts.  Depends on how technical you want to get.  But, yeah, the Civil War was the deathblow to any semblance of freedom that was left at the time.

----------


## bolil

But but but but I thought the Civil War was fought to free the slaves...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> But but but but I thought the Civil War was fought to free the slaves...


 lolz

----------


## FrankRep

> But but but but I thought the Civil War was fought to free the slaves...


Sucker!!

----------


## Mach

"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only last until the citizens discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that the Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, to be followed by a dictatorship, and then a monarchy."

1. A Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.
2. A Republic: The flock gets to vote for which wolves vote on dinner.
3. A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden, and the sheep are armed.
4. Federal Government: The means by which the sheep will be fooled into voting for a Democracy.
5. Freedom: Two very hungry wolves looking for dinner and finding a very well-informed and well-armed sheep.

----------


## FrankRep

bump

----------


## Zerubbabel

> Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders' belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.



I believe that we must have a written rule of Law that restrains all people, including government. There has to be rules to the game that everybody follows. But in some way those rules must be consented to by a strong majority of people i.e. democratically derived, and can not be locked in time, as that would create a tyranny of the dead over the living. And that generally describes our Constitution ratified through direct vote and with it's amendment mechanism.


But - the canard, the quacking duck of republic not democracy is disingenuous. Ben's famous quote is always misquoted. The verbatim quote as handed down to us through Dr. James McHenry: _"Well, Doctor, what have we gota Republic or a Monarchy? - A Republic, if you can keep it._ The two mutually exclusive options were a Republic or a Monarchy, not a Republic or a Democracy. Which makes perfect sense in the context of the day, i.e. the monarchical domination of Europe, and until very recently in Ben's time, the Colonies. If the Founders intended that a Republic would protect the rights of individual citizens, then they failed because they crafted the Constitution without such protections, the BOR followed years later, and they are crafted in such a way that they can be abolished through amendment. In the context of the historical Founders when they used the word 'Republic' they imagined the model of the classical Roman Republic and not the Roman Empire (emperor-monarchy). This is really a picayune point and it should maybe go without refutation, but the whole bit about misusing words asks for one to be called-out on the misuse of words.




>>> _freedom is the absence of government coercion_ <<<


This betrays a certain bias. The Tea Party is a reaction against Big-Government coercion. The Occupy Wall Street is a reaction against Big-Business coercion. Why would not freedom be the absence of any kind of coercion? Why just government coercion and the supposed threat of democratic coercion? Why exclude the coercion of Big-Business?

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> This betrays a certain bias. The Tea Party is a reaction against Big-Government coercion. The Occupy Wall Street is a reaction against Big-Business coercion. Why would not freedom be the absence of any kind of coercion? Why just government coercion and the supposed threat of democratic coercion? Why exclude the coercion of Big-Business?


Big-business coercion is impossible without a monopoly on force, namely the State, and that aside, a business would never pretend to be the _social contract_ and all of the baggage that phrase accompanies. Democratic means couch their activities, nefarious or good, under the social contract just as the State does.

The problem with Occupy Wall Street is that most of them wanted to influence/command the monopoly on force to do their bidding, instead of dismantling it. Such people are simply tyrants that currently have no power. They are not even remotely interested in freedom.

The same, by the way, is true of Tea Party neo-cons. They protest the State doing certain things, and only want it to do things _their way_. Tyrants just the same.

People should be opposed to an absolute monopoly on force, in principle. Actual application is a trickier matter due to mankind's insatiable quest for power, but even should one start to play the "necessary evil" game, one should never allow for a State disconnected from the people via unnecessary centralization. The US Constitution utterly failed to protect against centralization and all of the unnecessary evils it entails, and became downright farcical when it ceased focusing on the protection of (negative) rights, enforcements of contracts, law (involving only victims and intent!), and national *defense*.

----------


## Zerubbabel

> Big-business coercion is impossible without a monopoly on force, namely the State


I think such a statement could use a definition of _"coercion."_  Before the rise of city-states was there no coercion in the relations of men? If states were forever banished there would be no more coercion? Coercion is always possible. To think otherwise is to be a poor student of human relations.




> They (OWS) are not even remotely interested in freedom.


This is that bias I mentioned. OWS simply sees the threat to freedom coming from another direction, another coercive power. Crony-capitalism is not isolated incidences, it is our norm. In reality the TP and OWS are reacting against the same entity. At the turn of the last century GK Chesterton recognized this reality. He called them Hudge and Gudge. Some will hate Hudge while they love Gudge while the others will hate Gudge while they love Hudge. One side wants to rid us of Hudge and keep Gudg, while the other wants to rid us of Gudge and keep Hudge. While all this political discourse is happening, Hudge and Gudge are fornicating in a plush mansion up on the hill, paid for by us all. IMHO

----------


## sailingaway

> I believe that we must have a written rule of Law that restrains all people, including government. There has to be rules to the game that everybody follows. But in some way those rules must be consented to by a strong majority of people i.e. democratically derived, and can not be locked in time, as that would create a tyranny of the dead over the living. And that generally describes our Constitution ratified through direct vote and with it's amendment mechanism.
> 
> 
> But - the canard, the quacking duck of republic not democracy is disingenuous. Ben's famous quote is always misquoted. The verbatim quote as handed down to us through Dr. James McHenry: _"Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” - “A Republic, if you can keep it.”_ The two mutually exclusive options were a Republic or a Monarchy, not a Republic or a Democracy. Which makes perfect sense in the context of the day, i.e. the monarchical domination of Europe, and until very recently in Ben's time, the Colonies. If the Founders intended that a Republic would protect the rights of individual citizens, then they failed because they crafted the Constitution without such protections, the BOR followed years later, and they are crafted in such a way that they can be abolished through amendment. In the context of the historical Founders when they used the word 'Republic' they imagined the model of the classical Roman Republic and not the Roman Empire (emperor-monarchy). This is really a picayune point and it should maybe go without refutation, but the whole bit about misusing words asks for one to be called-out on the misuse of words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>> _freedom is the absence of government coercion_ <<<
> ...


The Constitution DOES have a change mechanism, that is how slavery ended, women got the vote, and the income tax was imposed on us.  But it takes an OVERWHELMING majority because the Constitution protects the rights of the minority AGAINST the majority, when the majority on a particular topic wants to take those rights away.  These limits are considered so basic to this country's identity with liberty that a mere swing of the majority pendulum can't be enough to change them.

And since people are best represented at the local level, federalism is important to me.  Someone in Oregon shouldn't have to live like someone in New York if Oregon and New York like to do things differently.

----------


## Zerubbabel

> The Constitution DOES have a change mechanism, that is how slavery ended, women got the vote, and the income tax was imposed on us.  But it takes an OVERWHELMING majority because the Constitution protects the rights of the minority AGAINST the majority, when the majority on a particular topic wants to take those rights away.  These limits are considered so basic to this country's identity with liberty that a mere swing of the majority pendulum can't be enough to change them.
> 
> And since people are best represented at the local level, federalism is important to me.  Someone in Oregon shouldn't have to live like someone in New York if Oregon and New York like to do things differently.



Let me restate as in my first paragraph, that I give my approbation to the Constitution. I also believe that it should be interpreted strictly by 'author's intent,' that is why my comment on _republican_ vs _democratic._ The Framers were not anti-democratic except in the very narrow sense of direct- democracy, favoring instead to copy the English parliamentary system with reforms, such as the sans king part. All those anti-democracy quotes posted early in this thread where uttered during or after the French Revolution. Read in historical context, those comments were political rhetoric distancing the speaker from the guillotine. 

The amendment process is generally limited to the overwhelming majority of 'the People.' But as in your example of income tax, and I would add prohibition, It is obvious that seen more precisely - amendment is limited to the overwhelming majority of Congress. Given that Congress can sometimes act in ways contrary to the will of the people, then the Constitution in reality allows a tiny minority of political elites to take away the rights of the overwhelming vast majority of the people ... and they might even get re-elected. 

I think there exists many romantic images about the Constitution and the Founders. The Founders were not simple everyday folk, farmers and craftsmen. They were elite politicians, lawyers and businessmen with great ambition. The Constitution did NOT do as is written in the OP: _"The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government..."_ Under the existing Constitution (the word as understood in the day), the Articles of Confederation, it was already established that the 'Continental' government was incredibly limited (couldn't even tax) and all power resided with the States. The new Constitution was the instrument of the vast expansion of Federal, centralized power. And it passed by a very slim margin against those who wanted to amend the Articles of Confederation. Compared to the reality of today where government usurps power not granted it, the Constitution as written seems attractive, but I tell ya that every modern Liberty-loving, tyranny-hating individual, if transported in time would have been against it.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> I think such a statement could use a definition of _"coercion."_  Before the rise of city-states was there no coercion in the relations of men? If states were forever banished there would be no more coercion? Coercion is always possible. To think otherwise is to be a poor student of human relations.


Coercion will exist regardless of the State, but the State's very _basis_ is coercion. Let's not forget that - business has *no* similarity in this respect, unethical business practices notwithstanding.




> This is that bias I mentioned. OWS simply sees the threat to freedom coming from another direction, another coercive power. Crony-capitalism is not isolated incidences, it is our norm. In reality the TP and OWS are reacting against the same entity. At the turn of the last century GK Chesterton recognized this reality. He called them Hudge and Gudge. Some will hate Hudge while they love Gudge while the others will hate Gudge while they love Hudge. One side wants to rid us of Hudge and keep Gudg, while the other wants to rid us of Gudge and keep Hudge. While all this political discourse is happening, Hudge and Gudge are fornicating in a plush mansion up on the hill, paid for by us all. IMHO


OWS ignores the man behind the curtain, and therefore are summarily dismissed. Crony capitalism needs... *drumroll* the State, by definition. They are railing against the symptom, not the disease. Pointless and ineffectual an endeavor if ever there was one.

The TP at least recognizes the disease, and want to kill that off. Of course, the neo-cons merely want the disease to afflict humanity in the way they desire, so I am focusing on those that want to shrink government in all its forms.

----------


## Zerubbabel

> "Big-business coercion is impossible without ... the State"  
> 
> "Coercion will exist regardless of the State"


Is the later a recanting of the former? Or is this an unashamed contradiction? If it is a recanting, then your denigration of OWS is unfounded because they indeed are reacting to a very real coercive power that will exist irregardless of the state. Also your ideal of statelessness is not the ideal of coercion-lessness or that of RP's Freedom.


While you want an ethical Gudge ("unethical business practices notwithstanding") divorced from Hudge, the OWS wants a benevolent Hudge (government uncontrolled by big-business) to control that rascally unethical Gudge. Hudge and Gudge OTOH are quite happy with their relationship. If we the people, Left and Right, can't find some common-ground in that, then nothing will ever change. RP has the ability to attract OWS'ers. We should build on that, IMO.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> Is the later a recanting of the former? Or is this an unashamed contradiction? If it is a recanting, then your denigration of OWS is unfounded because they indeed are reacting to a very real coercive power that will exist irregardless of the state. Also your ideal of statelessness is not the ideal of coercion-lessness or that of RP's Freedom.


The coercion big-business achieves now is impossible without the State. 

Coercion absent a monopoly on power is a lesser issue, one more easily dealt with by individuals. That coercion will exist regardless of the State does not mean the State is necessary to solve the problem. Indeed, evidence points to the State merely exacerbating the problem.

No recanting. 




> While you want an ethical Gudge ("unethical business practices notwithstanding") divorced from Hudge, the OWS wants a benevolent Hudge (government uncontrolled by big-business) to control that rascally unethical Gudge. Hudge and Gudge OTOH are quite happy with their relationship. If we the people, Left and Right, can't find some common-ground in that, then nothing will ever change. RP has the ability to attract OWS'ers. We should build on that, IMO.


What OWS wants is asinine. Full stop. A benevolent Hudge is a contradiction, by definition. Coercion is not a benevolent action, and the State coerces by the very definition of what it constitutes.

Without Hudge your strawman, Gudge, is effectively neutered. Should big business attempt to coerce without government, people will be able to effectively resist _without a monopoly on force sanctioning Gudge's behavior, and preventing effective recourse_.

Funny how that works.

----------


## sailingaway

> Let me restate as in my first paragraph, that I give my approbation to the Constitution. I also believe that it should be interpreted strictly by 'author's intent,' that is why my comment on _republican_ vs _democratic._ The Framers were not anti-democratic except in the very narrow sense of direct- democracy, favoring instead to copy the English parliamentary system with reforms, such as the sans king part. All those anti-democracy quotes posted early in this thread where uttered during or after the French Revolution. Read in historical context, those comments were political rhetoric distancing the speaker from the guillotine. 
> 
> The amendment process is generally limited to the overwhelming majority of 'the People.' But as in your example of income tax, and I would add prohibition, It is obvious that seen more precisely - amendment is limited to the overwhelming majority of Congress. Given that Congress can sometimes act in ways contrary to the will of the people, then the Constitution in reality allows a tiny minority of political elites to take away the rights of the overwhelming vast majority of the people ... and they might even get re-elected. 
> 
> I think there exists many romantic images about the Constitution and the Founders. The Founders were not simple everyday folk, farmers and craftsmen. They were elite politicians, lawyers and businessmen with great ambition. The Constitution did NOT do as is written in the OP: _"The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government..."_ Under the existing Constitution (the word as understood in the day), the Articles of Confederation, it was already established that the 'Continental' government was incredibly limited (couldn't even tax) and all power resided with the States. The new Constitution was the instrument of the vast expansion of Federal, centralized power. And it passed by a very slim margin against those who wanted to amend the Articles of Confederation. Compared to the reality of today where government usurps power not granted it, the Constitution as written seems attractive, but I tell ya that every modern Liberty-loving, tyranny-hating individual, if transported in time would have been against it.


Next to what they are doing now, it is both attractive and defensible.

I mistook your prior post, however, I thought you wanted it to be EASIER to change.

----------


## Zerubbabel

> No recanting.


Well, every ideology exists with inherent contradictions. Had you not worded yours so that it could be so easily highlighted it wouldn't have been so tempting to go there. Keep yours, I'll keep mine (hopefully not as obvious as yours).

Hudge is symbolic of power, Gudge is symbolic of wealth. Perhaps in a utopian world one can exist without the other. But in our world they seem just so symbiotic. It seems that if one would loose the other that they would simply grow a new one. Power gains wealth, and wealth buys power. They are really quite interchangeable.




> ...to coerce without government...


Here is maybe where you might leave this Left/Right tangent, stop dreaming of utopian worlds where certain things don't exist and comment on the OP by RP.  The entire thread is couched in the acceptance of government for the strict purpose of coercing everybody, supposedly even themselves, to obey the Rule of Law (The Constitution). It seems that your biggest argument is against the OP, not my little tangents.

----------


## Zerubbabel

> Next to what they are doing now, it is both attractive and defensible.
> 
> I mistook your prior post, however, I thought you wanted it to be EASIER to change.



I think it should be harder. I think it should include a referendum of the people. But that goes back to the only meaningful distinction between _republic_ and _democracy_, that people might vote for an elite who would then vote on the issue, and not vote directly on the issue itself. The income tax and prohibition amendments never would have passed, but I also wonder if the 15th would have had to wait a century or so. There is also the idea that the House, who supposedly only represent the will of the people, while the Senate represents the educated elite and balances out the passions of the people ... in our modern age we do not need a man to ride his horse to Philadelphia to vote on behalf of the people, the people could vote directly. As the House holds the purse strings imagine the effect this would have on the size of government and the rapidity in which we go to war. The impassioned people would not get their way because of the Senate and the Government would not get their way because of the House. A hamstrung government. Ahhh utopia!

Playing with intellectual dolls aside - How is it that the Constitution is defensible? When government violates the Constitution how do we defend it?  Has that not been the issue RP has fought throughout his career, all the while government has continued it's violations limited only by its own hubris?

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> Well, every ideology exists with inherent contradictions. Had you not worded yours so that it could be so easily highlighted it wouldn't have been so tempting to go there. Keep yours, I'll keep mine (hopefully not as obvious as yours).


That unethical behavior exists does not form an indictment against ethical models. It certainly doesn't form an indictment against voluntarism, et al, or show any inherent contradiction.

While my position is entirely consistent in that _all_ coercion is unethical, yours isn't. You gave this away with your nonsense about benevolent government.




> Hudge is symbolic of power, Gudge is symbolic of wealth. Perhaps in a utopian world one can exist without the other. But in our world they seem just so symbiotic. It seems that if one would loose the other that they would simply grow a new one. Power gains wealth, and wealth buys power. They are really quite interchangeable.


The State is a monopoly on force. No symbolism necessary. Business holds no such distinction. Your argument is dismissed due to the _fallacy of equivocation_.




> Here is maybe where you might leave this Left/Right tangent, stop dreaming of utopian worlds where certain things don't exist and comment on the OP by RP.  The entire thread is couched in the acceptance of government for the strict purpose of coercing everybody, supposedly even themselves, to obey the Rule of Law (The Constitution). It seems that your biggest argument is against the OP, not my little tangents.


If you were aware of the full breadth of Ron Paul's work, then you would know he is a voluntarist through and through. His championing of the Constitution was definitely not due to a belief in benevolent government, or an acceptance that coercion is ethical. Trying to return to constitutional government is simply a means of damage control in that light.

Voluntarism and Occupy Wall Street are not compatible. By and large they demand increased regulation of the so-called big business, and wealth redistribution. Neither are Ron Paul's calling card. Ron Paul, unlike Occupy Wall Street, realized government is the problem and not part of the solution.

----------


## Zerubbabel

The Right rightly sees that the basically ethical businessman is corrupted by the violent power of the state. The Left rightly sees that the basically benevolent statesman is corrupted by wealthy special interests. Both sides intuitively and viscerally know that they are right. and are as equally sure that the other is wrong. The sides become so embittered and *entrenched* in their singular, dogmatic views that they come to believe that the other's terms - _"benevolent statesman"_ and _"ethical businessman"_ -  are absurdly self-contradictory. Such a creature can not exist. _"Impossible!"_ 


Enter Ron Paul who seeks to embody both of these terms. As a businessman he spoke out against corruption institutionalized into his medical industry and then goes to Washington and votes his conscious and not his self-interest. 


Put down the hand-grenade and come out of the foxhole.

----------


## Zerubbabel

Is not anybody here going to champion the _"Republic"_ canard?

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> The Right rightly sees that the basically ethical businessman is corrupted by the violent power of the state. The Left rightly sees that the basically benevolent statesman is corrupted by wealthy special interests. Both sides intuitively and viscerally know that they are right. and are as equally sure that the other is wrong. The sides become so embittered and *entrenched* in their singular, dogmatic views that they come to believe that the other's terms - _"benevolent statesman"_ and _"ethical businessman"_ -  are absurdly self-contradictory. Such a creature can not exist. _"Impossible!"_


Strawman fallacies are unimpressive. At this point it's getting tiring.

The State is a monopoly on force. This has been accepted. With the State, possessing a monopoly on force as it does, unethical behavior is entrenched beyond all control when it does occur under the mask of law. A Nobel Prize was awarded to James Buchanan for his work that pointed out that politicians are motivated by their self-interest. Honestly, such a point should be common sense, but I digress. As economics are often related to self-interest, it comes as no surprise that business affairs become tied into State affairs if the government is set up in such a way that it concerns themselves with them.

Humans can behave both ethically and unethically. This is true with, or without, the State. The State, unlike businesses which may or may not be ethical, is alone in that it uniquely possesses the _defining feature_ of being a coercive entity. Unethical businessmen, plus the State, is a terrible formula. The United States has a long history of what you might call "benevolent statesmen", and yet here we are. By the way, ethical businessmen, plus the State, is also a terrible formula. Do you care to take a guess what the common problem here is? Individuals in positions of power that employ the monopoly on force to do their bidding, no matter how arbitrary their bidding may be, so long as it suits their self-interest.

Unlike "The Left" and "The Right" as you've called them, which would insinuate that statesmen/businessmen are _assumed_ benevolent until proven otherwise, I hold no such pretensions that any given individual is going to act a particular way. With this knowledge I am better able to determine that the State is an unnecessary danger to individual liberty due to the basis of what it constitutes. I don't need a leader to act in my interest unless I appoint him myself, by my own decision.

Ron Paul knows this. Why don't you?

----------


## FrankRep

> Is not anybody here going to champion the _"Republic"_ canard?



*Republic vs. Democracy*



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW6AKVyi6As

----------


## Zerubbabel

> *Republic vs. Democracy*
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW6AKVyi6As



The video begins with a misquote. As I wrote in post #43 The verbatim quote as handed down to us through Dr. James McHenry: _"Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” - “A Republic, if you can keep it.”_ The full quote clearly shows that to the woman and to the common understanding of the language of the day, the two mutually exclusive options were a Republic or a Monarchy, not a Republic or a Democracy. Disingenuous misquote. 


The video ends with three quotes by Founders. 


_Madison:_ If one examines the context of given in Federalist #10 he actually defines for us the terms: *"democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person"* & *"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place."*  For Madison the distinction lies entirely in a direct, or _"pure"_ democracy verses a representative democracy. And if you read #10 he argues that the representative democracy would be much better in the creation of a large centralized government verses the small decentralized more democratic governments that were common in New England townhalls, and what helped to lead to Shays' rebellion. 


_Hamilton:_ (read with sarcasm) That big-government archetype who pushed for, and got, strong federal government, standing armies and a centralized national bank, surely meant by _"Republic"_ a system of government under a Rule of Law which protects the rights and liberties of all, including the minority. That of course is why he declared that _"we are a republican government"_ in his argument for ratification of a Constitution sans a Bill of Rights ... and 4 years later, 4 years while we existed as a republic sans a Bill of Rights, when the Bill of Rights finally was conceived of as a good idea, he was a staunch opponent of it.


_Adams:_ Adams yes. But not Sam. This quote is from one of John's letters to John Taylor in 1814. In chapter 18 of the letter (yeah, long letters, aye?) the birchian mis-attributed quote is couched between:  _“Mangled and Bleeding Victims of Democratic Rage and Popular Fury” in France, during the Despotism of Democracy in that Country, which Napoleon ought to be immortalized for calling Ideology."_  -and- _"Napoleon and all his generals were but creatures of democracy, as really as Rienzi, Theodore, Massaniello, Jack Cade, or Wat Tyler. This democratical hurricane, inundation, earthquake, pestilence, call it which you will, at last aroused and alarmed all the world."_  It is as I wrote in post #47 _"those anti-democracy quotes posted early in this thread where uttered during or after the French Revolution. Read in historical context, those comments were political rhetoric distancing the speaker from the guillotine."_  Remember, _1814_. 


These 4 quotes were the only evidence that McManus offered the viewer. One was from a big government scoundrel who clearly demonstrated his understanding of _Republic_ as different from the Birchian view. The others were disingenuous misrepresentations at best. But where this video really discredits itself (I of course am ignoring the whole political spectrum thing) is in it's display of logic, of premise/deduction. At 5:36 McManus gives the etymons of _'republic'_ as _"the public thing"_ and immediately deduces -I mean deduces so quickly he actually looses his breath for a moment- deduces _"The Law"_ as the public thing.  Based on this etymological evidence he then treats this definition as pure fact and inserts this understanding into the Founders quotes. 


If _Republic = Law_, then King Hammurabi formed a republic in ancient Mesopotamia;  Biblical Israel under the Torah was a republic; and the Taliban are a republic under Sharia law. No. That is stupid. The founders understood the meaning of republic from historical examples. The most salient was the (short-lived) Roman Republic. It was characterized by balancing branches of power one of which being a plebeian direct-democratic voice. Yet it did not have a written Constitution but only tradition, and an ever-changing common-law (stare decisis). What characterized it most was found in the etymology of _'Republic'_ (_"state in which supreme power rests in the people"_) which is yes, _"a public thing,"_ but "_Public"_ stems from the root _populus_ _"people"_ and is modified by the Latin _'pubes'_ to mean _"the adult population."_  Citizenship in the Roman Republic was very limited and carried with it many obligations and was most markedly characterized by civic duty and _NOT_ individual rights. That is how the Founders could declare that they created a _Republic_ sans Bill of Rights and not be using what would obviously be seen absurd language according to the Birchian view.

----------


## FrankRep

> The video begins with a misquote. As I wrote in post #43 The verbatim quote as handed down to us through Dr. James McHenry: "Well, Doctor, what have we gota Republic or a Monarchy? - A Republic, if you can keep it.


The point of the quote is to show that Benjamin Franklin called the our form of government a "Republic."


The Founding Fathers were anti-Democracy.


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

"*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 deaths."
*- James Madison*

*Democracy* is the most vile form of government.
*- James Madison*

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

Nice propaganda spin Zerubbabel, btw.

----------


## Zerubbabel

> 


Thanks for the effort. A link, one sentence, a cut-n-paste and a witty invective.

Thanks for the dialog.
Z gone. You won.

----------


## FrankRep

> Thanks for the effort. A link, one sentence, a cut-n-paste and a witty invective.
> 
> Thanks for the dialog.
> Z gone. You won.


That's all I need to show that the founding fathers were Pro-Republic and Anti-Democracy. 

Do I need to point out that Ron Paul is also Pro-Republic and Anti-Democracy?

----------


## Zerubbabel

> Anti-Democracy


I know I said I was gone. But, after watching the entire _"Overview"_ series (which you won't believe but I agree with in principle) I just have to share this irony: In the final video @6:20 - 


_"Time is running out for Americans who sense that something is wrong. They have to decide what kind of a country we shall leave for future generations. All that is needed ........"_


Ok. All the demagoguery,  spinning premises and convoluted deductions have been made. A dire forecast made, and we come to the final conclusions and our only saving course of action:


_"All that is needed is for a sufficient number of Americans to get involved in the fight for freedom and to return our nation  to less government, more responsibility, and with God's help a better world."_ 




ROFLMAO! This is democratic action!  Oh, and with the _"sufficient number"_ John McManus is of course calling upon the tyrannical power of the majority to impose it's will. LOL. Precious!


OK. Now I'm gone.

----------


## FrankRep

> Ok. All the demagoguery,  spinning premises and convoluted deductions have been made. A dire forecast made, and we come to the final conclusions and our only saving course of action:
> 
> _"All that is needed is for a sufficient number of Americans to get involved in the fight for freedom and to return our nation  to less government, more responsibility, and with God's help a better world."_ 
> 
> ROFLMAO! This is democratic action!  Oh, and with the _"sufficient number"_ John McManus is of course calling upon the tyrannical power of the majority to impose it's will. LOL. Precious!
> 
> 
> OK. Now I'm gone.


We need a "sufficient number" of people to support and defend the Constitution and our Republic. This has Nothing to do with Democracy.


LOL at your spin job.

----------


## talkingpointes

> [/I]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO! This is democratic action!  Oh, and with the _"sufficient number"_ John McManus is of course calling upon the tyrannical power of the majority to impose it's will. LOL. Precious!
> 
> ...


In what world is that even a complete arguement? Being concious of something and fighting against it on a intellectual level is not voting fwiend.

----------


## Zerubbabel

> a complete arguement?


This thread, and folder, is about constitutional interpretation. At question here is what exactly did the the Framers mean by 'Republic' and 'Democracy.' In #43 I gave a half-hearted refutation of the OP. In #47 I expanded on general misconceived views of the Constitution. In #59 I refuted the John Birch video that Frank marched out as a proof. The thing with Paulesen was only a take-off on my Left/Right comment in #43. You comment on my refutation of the JBS video. Like in Constitutional interpretation, one shouldn't take snippets out of context (see 'Madison' in #59).

What did the Framers mean by _'Republic'_ or _'Democracy'_?

----------


## Zerubbabel

> We need a "sufficient number" of people to support and defend the Constitution


_"How is it that the Constitution is defensible? When government violates the Constitution how do we defend it? Has that not been the issue RP has fought throughout his career, all the while government has continued it's violations limited only by its own hubris?"_  Post #53 to Sailing Away

----------


## FrankRep

> _"How is it that the Constitution is defensible? When government violates the Constitution how do we defend it? Has that not been the issue RP has fought throughout his career, all the while government has continued it's violations limited only by its own hubris?"_  Post #53 to Sailing Away


How do we defend the Constitution? 

1.) Educating people about the values and importance of the Constitution.
2.) Kicking out the politicians that violate the Constitution.
3.) Electing people like Ron Paul at a state and federal level to obey the Constitution.

----------


## Zerubbabel

> How do we defend the Constitution? 
> 
> 1.) Educating people about the values and importance of the Constitution.
> 2.) Kicking out the politicians that violate the Constitution.
> 3.) Electing people like Ron Paul at a state and federal level to obey the Constitution.


1.) Yes. And IMO, best done with intellectual honesty. _"George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena.* Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell's view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good."_ OP

2.) Yes, through _Democracy_ (the representative type) - or violent revolution - or ????
3.) Yes, _Democracy_ (the representative type)

----------


## FrankRep

> 2.) Yes, through _Democracy_ (the representative type) - or violent revolution - or ????
> 3.) Yes, _Democracy_ (the representative type)


What kind of propaganda are you pushing? 

Ron Paul and I both reject Majority/Mob Rules (aka: Democracy).

----------


## bolil

De Toqueville called it: Forced equality of anything save the law and Liberty are not the same thing, nor is one likely to lead to the other.

----------


## Zerubbabel

Frank, these are very simple abstract ideas we are dealing with here. Are you purposely being obtuse? Think carefully about Madison's explanation from post #59: 
_"democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person" & "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place."_


If indeed Ron Paul did _"reject Majority/Mob Rules"_ then if elected president he would decline it as the illegitimate tyranny of the majority's will and also being very un-republican.


The only meaningful distinction we can apply to modern politics is in the difference between voting for a candidate (representation) and voting directly on an issue ('pure' democracy), which today we call a *referendum*. If indeed Ron Paul did _"reject Majority/Mob Rules"_ he would reject all referendums. Does he?




_"Just think of the improvement, we had something happen in Houston just this last week. Guess what? They turned off all the highways cameras, all the traffic cameras in Houston. And that came about by a referendum_ (direct democracy!)_."

_
http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-11...

----------


## FrankRep

> ... blah blah blah....


Zerubbabel has never heard of the electoral college. The "popular vote" doesn't elect the president, the electoral college does.


*Electoral College:*


The United States Electoral College is the institution that officially elects the President and Vice President of the United States every four years. *The President and Vice President are not elected directly by the voters.*

----------

