# Democracy vs Republic:  Which are We?



## Wingnut

Apparently, even our elected officials forget this.

Republic vs. Democracy

Rule by Law vs. Rule by Majority

Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."
Not only have we failed to keep it, most don't even know what it is.

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).
Lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic requiring approval from the three banches of government, the Supreme Court and individual jurors (jury-nullification). Lawmaking in our unlawful democracy occurs rapidly requiring approval from the whim of the majority as determined by polls and/or voter referendums. A good example of democracy in action is a lynch mob. A more recent example was the failure of the US Senate to uphold their oath "to do impartial justice" and remove bill clinton from office. Those Senators should be removed themselves, for failure to uphold their oath and for aiding and abetting a known criminal. If you would like to help remove them, E-mail me.

Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.

Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true. The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy and they repeatedly and emphatically said that they had founded a republic.

Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government".... Conversely, the word Democracy is not mentioned even once in the Constitution. Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with these words,

"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...",
"We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)

"A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men." Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

Our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.

DEMOCRACY:

A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
REPUBLIC:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
The manuals containing these definitions were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation's wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good. Many of F.D.R.'s policies were suggested by his right hand man, Harry Hopkins, who said,

"Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference".


----------



## RJS

I know what we are, its in the Pledge of Allegiance.


----------



## Blake Bowden

We are headed towards socialism.


----------



## jonesvilletexas

Republic?


----------



## nick1368

good post


----------



## Bill Lins

I voted by what it is supposed to be, not what it unfortunately has become.  :-(


----------



## gortex6

Wingnut said:


> "A Republic, if you can keep it."



Liberty is what a sailor is granted before comming ashore; it is something temporary.  We are losing our individual liberty by each passing day.


----------



## ragged tiger

Voting republic.


----------



## gipper2005

I voted for what we are currently; not what we are supposed to be.


----------



## JTM

yea, that's a good point.  it's a representative democracy (which, really, is an oligarchy... and it looks much like a monarchy right now with the president as king and the representatives and senators as nobles).  look at the way the got their pitchforks and took back the AIG bonuses.  that's a democracy for you.  punishing people through legislation?  _seriously?_

i want to change my vote to: a stepping stone to socialism


----------



## Zack

"A stepping stone to socialism".

Similar words were spoken when social security came about.  Same words were said for the medicaid/medicare programs.  These programs have benefited millions.  The problems lie in the administration of these and future programs.


----------



## Wingnut

and yet we keep going to the same well hoping it will get better while tossing TRILLIONS of dollars down the rabbit hole.  Isnt that the definition of stupid?  Doing the same thing the same way and hoping for different results?  (lol just noticed that HOPE is part of the equation imagine that)


----------



## Zack

"Doing the same thing the same way and hoping for different results?"

No one in the "leadership"(?) of this country is held accountable.   If we had as much accountability as we do apathy in the US things might be different.  The same people are reelected time after time.  Might be our just desserts?


----------



## TCShelton

Zack said:


> The same people are reelected time after time.



Or the same people, different face, different party.


----------



## Sirius

Zack said:


> "Doing the same thing the same way and hoping for different results?"
> 
> No one in the "leadership"(?) of this country is held accountable.   If we had as much accountability as we do apathy in the US things might be different.  The same people are reelected time after time.  Might be our just desserts?



We hold our leaders accountable every time we have an election.


----------



## Wingnut

If you really drill down on the issue, its not 'leadership' its the voters fault.  We elect the same people or their clones every election.  Everyone says they want change but then they elect the incumbent.  Many polls have shown that people dislike the job that the president is doing and that congress is doing.  But in the same polls it shows they are happy with THEIR congressman, just not the other ones.    

We the people put the 546 azzhats in office that have screwed up the country, increased our deficits to unfathomable levels and allowed them to dictate to US what is a right, what needs to be fixed and how.

As you said and as Ive posted many times before, health care needs some fixing.  It doesn't need to be destroyed and redone so that less than 1% of the population can gain new free coverage.

I personally dont trust the people that have given us medicare, medicaid, social security, the VA, Native American Reservation Health Care, the post office, amtrack to completely take over 1/6th of the Nations economy and get it right!


----------



## Nate Riley

Sirius said:


> We hold our leaders accountable every time we have an election.



Exactly.  An election should be considered a term limit, whenever the person quits representing his constituents, his term should be up.


----------



## ljlinson1206

This conversation can get "Very Deep" and I will only get a headache.  Therefore i will refrain from venting on to you guys.


----------



## JTM

Zack said:


> "A stepping stone to socialism".
> 
> Similar words were spoken when social security came about.  Same words were said for the medicaid/medicare programs.  These programs have benefited millions.  The problems lie in the administration of these and future programs.


 
and i believe each one of those things were stepping stones.  these programs have also hurt millions.  



Sirius said:


> We hold our leaders accountable every time we have an election.



hah.  this is almost funny.



ljlinson1206 said:


> This conversation can get "Very Deep" and I will only get a headache.  Therefore i will refrain from venting on to you guys.


 
heck yea it can.


----------



## Zack

JTM said:


> and i believe each one of those things were stepping stones.  these programs have also hurt millions.
> 
> 
> Hurt millions?  How?


----------



## HKTidwell

Social Security wasn't intended to be the end all of retirements it was meant as a fall back in case things got bad.  To many people have used it as a Oh hey I have a retirement it is called Social Security.  It was intended as a supplemental retirement.  In this mindset it has hurt millions who thought it would be the end all only to find out to late that it paid the bare minimums and they had to scrounge through the rest of their life. 

Medicaid/medicare These programs are ridden with fraud and waste.  That is my money they are pissing away!  There are some people that really need help and we need to as a people find methods to help.  This is not one of the principle tenants that our Government was founded on.

Social programs lead to a dependence in government.  Dependence in Government leads to laziness.  Laziness leads to a requirement for mercenaries and foreign labor.  Mercenaries and foreign labors leads to nations failing.  This is History repeated time and time again and each culture/nation thinks oh we know how to do it where it will be successful.

Sorry guys I really try to steer away from these conversation but I always end up being annoyed by them and commenting.


----------



## ess1113

http://www.flixxy.com/political-systems.htm

This is a great explaination on the differences


----------



## MacFie

Democratic Republic if it hasn't been said before.  The majority votes their representatives, the representatives vote for their constituents(hahahahahahahaha(fill three more pages with haha's))


----------



## rhitland

Can we as people with such immature mentalities as a whole do without socialist programs?  I for one am happy to have the police, fire department, libraries, national parks, etc... but until we mature as a society then socialist programs such as mentioned here will be needed.  Take a quick look at the history of humankind and you will see we have come a million miles in our forms of governing the people.  This countries government is the most successful attempt in known history of a republic and as bad as it seems to us we just have nothing to compare it to for real comparison.  This is not to say we need to give up the fight for a true republic the ability to fight is the very essence of a republic.  Wonderful post brother Wing.  I have to admit I tied the two terms together but never will again.  I look forward as well for this being a wonderful conversation starter for those preaching democracy!


----------



## MacFie

> Can we as people with such immature mentalities as a whole do without socialist programs?



Having lived on the west coast, and in Texas, which are pretty much bipolar opposites, I say we as a country have a lot to learn.  Not a California expert or anything, but seemed like they had too many "socialist" programs without the money to really back it up.  Texas on the other hand seems to have a fairly minimal amount, but isn't going broke from having a bleeding heart.  It gets to be interesting topic no doubt.


----------



## jwhoff

I defer to brother Benjamin Franklin on this one.  Although I fear the answer may be at hand.  Not sure any of us will like the answer.

Why are we all so eager to destroy the experiment.


----------



## Traveling Man

jwhoff said:


> Why are we all so eager to destroy the experiment.


 
Because we are the subjects in this "skinner box". The only problem being the "We" of "We the People" (us) of this experiment recognize that we should have a a say on how this experiment is being run, we are not the "subjects" of the ruling class. I thought the "ruling class" was taught this lesson awhile ago...
Maybe I'm wrong?


----------



## S.Courtemanche

I voted republic as our founding fathers intended, I however believe as Bro Blake does as we are headed towards socialism.


----------



## Curt Miles

We are a Republic. Its up to men like FREEMASONS to keep it so. Where is all the influence and Power that the freemasons should have in this matter. I have to wonder at times if we even do anything anymore.


----------



## BryanMaloney

We are a constitutional democratic republic. This means that our government is _res publica_, a public thing, property held in common. This is in contrast to _res privata._ A state based on the concept that political power is a matter of private property is usually called a monarchy, although that private access to power could be distributed (feudalism) or centralized (absolute monarchy). However, there is absolutely nothing in the basic concept of a republic that requires the participation of any significantly large portion of the people. A republic could be an oligarchy--as was the case for the Republic of Venice. It was a republic in that nobody personally owned political power as if it were property. However, stewardship of that political power was limited to a small group within Venice. The Roman Republic was an aristocratic republic. While political power was not private property, one had to be born into the proper families to directly control the public political power. The People's Republic of China is a republic. Power is not inherited by family ties as a form of private property (in contrast to North Korea). However, in addition to being a republic, we are democratic--the people are supposed to have a large voice in the exercise of public power. Finally, we are constitutional. Our government is supposed to be explicitly limited in its powers by a fundamental body of law that cannot be easily changed.

However, the full status of our form of government is an obscene thing in the eyes of liberals and of conservatives. Liberals wish to dispense with the republic and turn political power into the whim of the mob, having no thought for the public good. Conservatives wish to dispense with the democratic and turn political power into the plaything of a self-appointed elite, having no thought to the people. Both wish to dispose of the constitutional and eliminate all limits upon government.


----------



## jwhoff

Traveling Man said:


> I thought the "ruling class" was taught this lesson awhile ago...
> Maybe I'm wrong?



It's been a considerable time since the Tea Pot Dome Scandal blew. Generations and lazy, entitled people have come and gone without doing their part to move the great experiment forward.  A sizable attitude adjustment is now well overdue.  Are we up to it any longer?


----------



## Michael Neumann

Stepping Stone to Social Order ... we were once a Great Republic.... we can make it back but the masses seem content to be stripped of their rights.


----------



## Michael Hatley

We are both, and this is most clearly represented by the compromise our founders made over congress.  Remembering that the Senate was not directly elected until relatively recently - and the sort of politics even today required for statewide election is a different critter than district level politics.  That is where you can see the different aspects of classic "democracy" and "republican" style government both most obviously at play.

I feel like nowadays we like to put our government into a category and then stand our ground about it.  In Texas, socialism is for well and true a dirty word.  It means lazy, inefficiency, and all sorts of stuff.  I tire of conversations where every man at the table tries to impress upon the other how much they revere capitalism and despise socialism, and how the other side of the aisle are ugly human beings somewhere in their core in one way or another.  It is the same sort of stuff that the other side did during the Bush years, and it gets on my nerves.  Once you've ead Smith, Rand, Marx, the Founders along with the Greeks and others with a critical eye it all just seems like small stuff that is a reflection of the bad drama played out on Fox, MSNBC and other garbage news outlets - which has a formula whereby they put a strawman talking head up against some other talking heads and have a go of it.   It is meaningless.

Somewhere along the way I think we've made "compromise" and "civility" almost pejorative terms.  And that, if anything, is what is hurting us.

Compromise was what the founders were best at.  Not rigid, unbending conservatism - they were change agents if ever there was a group of them alive on this planet together at one time.  That sometimes gets lost in the mix for some reason.

So anyway, both.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Whether or not a state is a "republic" does not depend upon how "direct" or "indirect" elections are. That's just a smokescreen. A state is a "republic" in one of two ways that have nothing at all to do with each other. In one sense, any state not ruled in a hereditary fashion, at least in theory, is a "republic". This makes the USSR, Nazi Germany, the USA, and Mexico equally "republics". This is how "republic" is usually used in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth nations.

I another sense, a "republic" is a state in which government is considered "res publica"--a public matter, that cannot ever be owned by any person or subgroup of the people as a whole. Thus, not even a majority can legitimately hold absolute power in this sort of republic. This is given practical expression through "constitutional" limits upon the power of government. I put "constitutional" in quotes because something can be "constitutional" in this sense without being Constitutional in the sense it is normally used in the USA. A state can have a very strong "constitution" without having an explicitly-written Constitution. Likewise, a state with a very nicely done Constitution with no real "constitutional" limit on the power of government. Under this sense of "republic", the USA and the United Kingdom are both "republics", while the USSR and Nazi Germany are not, and Mexico might or might not be.

Also, since "conservativism" has been brought up, I should mention that all the Founders would have 100% rejected the idea that they were "conservative". A "conservative" in their era was a monarchist, wanted a state-established church, insisted upon hereditary transmission of political power, wished for elected legislatures to have no more than an advisory capacity, and wanted the judiciary to be completely dependent upon the executive (monarch). Actually, replace "monarchist" with a GW Bush style "unitary executive", and such a very anti-Founder conservative would have a very happy home within the current-day Republican party.


----------



## Michael Hatley

Sure, republics can and do include aristocracies.  My point about congress is it is an easy and pretty clear way to see the different philosophies, which are far from diametrically opposed, existing laterally.  Of course if you must be literal, it is a poor example.  But in practice, in the modern era, it rather is.  The House is far more populist than the Senate.  

Representative government is what is behind a Republic.  Direct elections and so forth behind democracy.  

A person can assign all sorts of phrases and terms both pejorative and praising to either or both, but at its core, thats what they are.  

Your last paragraph is confusing.  None of the founders favored monarchism, by definition.  I am sure you understand that Adams and Jefferson had very different views. The big fight was over federalism.

I don't know what to say to the implication that modern day Republicans are monarchists, other than this is the sort of reason I avoid politics.


----------



## jvarnell

Michael Hatley said:


> Sure, republics can and do include aristocracies. My point about congress is it is an easy and pretty clear way to see the different philosophies, which are far from diametrically opposed, existing laterally. Of course if you must be literal, it is a poor example. But in practice, in the modern era, it rather is. The House is far more populist than the Senate.
> 
> Representative government is what is behind a Republic. Direct elections and so forth behind democracy.
> 
> A person can assign all sorts of phrases and terms both pejorative and praising to either or both, but at its core, thats what they are.
> 
> Your last paragraph is confusing. None of the founders favored monarchism, by definition. I am sure you understand that Adams and Jefferson had very different views. The big fight was over federalism.
> 
> I don't know what to say to the implication that modern day Republicans are monarchists, other than this is the sort of reason I avoid politics.



I agree with you but what you did not say  to our brother BrianMaloney is that if you listen to the media and not do your own research you will think the Republicans are monarchists.  When in fact you look at the policies of the demecrats you will see the US bing pushed back to that by the Dems. policies.  You can really see this in the exective orders being isued now VS with Republican presidents. 

The way I see it if you are for freedom and personal rights (responcibalitys go along with that) you will see that the Ta party wing of the republicans are right.  Yes Karl Rove is one of the bad guys just as much as Oboma.


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> I agree with you but what you did not say  to our brother BrianMaloney is that if you listen to the media and not do your own research you will think the Republicans are monarchists.


 
I do my own research, and many a Republican, including quite a few of my personal acquaintance, is just a closeted monarchist, aching for a "strong leader" to "enforce morality" upon the USA. I've spoken to Republicans who were of the opinion that foreign-born people, even if they were in the country legally and had become citizens, ought not be permitted to own businesses within the USA. Likewise, I have lost track of those Republicans of my acquaintance who would be very happy for all the Blue Laws to be re-enacted, and a few would even cheer for a return to Prohibition, introduction of legislation banning long hair for men, and essentially imposing neo-Leviticanism upon us all. That's my direct research truth, based on personal interaction.

Those of us associated with the Republican Liberty Caucus have no illusions about the party as a whole. It gleefully courts theocrats, "strong man" worshippers, and all manner of big government supporters, so long as those people will not vote Democrat. Remember, it was a Republican president (GW Bush) who gave us the Patriot Act, NOT a Democrat president. It is no surprise that the Democrat didn't try to repeal it, of course.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Michael Hatley said:


> Your last paragraph is confusing.  None of the founders favored monarchism, by definition.  I am sure you understand that Adams and Jefferson had very different views. The big fight was over federalism.



I stated that many modern-day "conservatives" would be 100% opposed to the Founders, since the Founders were 100% opposed to the conservativism of their day, which was monarchism. These modern-day conservatives are nothing but closeted monarchists, who worship at the feet of "Great Leaders". These are the ones who cheered for the Patriot Act, who claimed that GW Bush had an inherent right to ignore any part of any law he didn't like (cf "signing statements"), who supported the Bush doctrine of a "Unitary Executive", who would be happy to have a state-imposed church (appropriately Evangelical, of course).

At no time did I state that Republicans are closeted monarchists. What I stated is that a closeted monarchist would find a happy home within the current Republican party. Groups like the Republican Liberty Caucus fight such people tooth and nail, but the RLC isn't running the party, these days.


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> you will see that the Ta party wing of the republicans are right.  Yes Karl Rove is one of the bad guys just as much as Oboma.



Tea party? You mean, like Sharron Angle, who stated that Sharia law has taken hold of Frankford, TX? I used to support the Tea Party movement, when it was about taxation and government excess, but it has been taken over by jingoists and theocrats who harp on issues that have nothing to do with taxation and government excess.


----------



## Michael Neumann

Has anyone read _The Mystery Of The Aleph: Mathematics, the Kabbalah, and the Search for Infinity_? 

Great read, mathematics centered but it brings up a mathematician that was friends with Einstein, Cantor. He worked out a method of bringing the US into a Dictatorship while making it seem as though the government was abiding by the Constitution through requesting a series of concessions in the name of security. I bring it up because it appears our government has read this book as well...


----------



## jwhoff

Thanks.  I'll do so read.

Actually the math adds up.  If our government doesn't get off dead center the likelihood is that other answers, much more dark and sinister answers, will be offered up by crazed fringes.  

I doubt not that the American population, spoiled, entitled and smug as it is, will follow a more cohesive German population of the 1920s and 30s, right down the tubes to some dictator who offers simple answers and blame on weaker, imagined enemies of the state.  This is a much simpler coarse that becoming a responsible, informed citizen who works to solve issues for the good of all.

After all, who really wants to spend time enlightening themselves about the running of the republic?  Hell, we can spend our valuable time twittering, on Facebook, and watching the Entertainment Channel, FOX News and MSNBC!  After all, WE ARE ENTITLED!

And no!  I don't support the Tea Party or wingers of either side. The answers and blame they all aspire to are much too simple minded to run a republic or civilization.  Time for everyone to grow up!  

fresh horse droppings abound!


----------



## jvarnell

BryanMaloney said:


> Tea party? You mean, like Sharron Angle, who stated that Sharia law has taken hold of Frankford, TX? I used to support the Tea Party movement, when it was about taxation and government excess, but it has been taken over by jingoists and theocrats who harp on issues that have nothing to do with taxation and government excess.



As an answer all the things you answer4ed back to me. I and all the concervetive republicans in office I know none want a monarcy and wwish they did not need to serve to keep it from happening.  And yes the Tea Party is the cloest to an anti-monarchists.


----------



## Curt Miles

Well said !


----------



## ARizo1011

Blake Bowden said:


> We are headed towards socialism.



Funny you state that because reading the title I thought the same exact thing brother. 


Freemasonry


----------



## lsu4life4ever

I think America will be ok. We have a huge economic problem, and a failing education but remember, for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. We will be fine. God Bless America. We've been in darker times before. 


Humble Lodge No. 979 
Initiated on June 4th, 2013. 
Geaux Tigers! 
So Mote It Be!


----------



## ufuze

We are suspose to be a republic but crooked politicians would have you think otherwise.

Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## dew_time

No one has mentioned the shift in the political parties over the last 200 years. I seem to remember that what was once the republic party that is being spoken of here is actually todays democratic party and vice versa. The names may be the same however the agendas have reversed and as I recall it was all based on who could get the votes. So, based on that, if you want to vote for what this country was founded on and what the founding father intended on building for this nation... you would have to vote for the democratic party. Please don't blow a gasket over this as I am a current day replublican who is only putting his 2 cents in.

Sent from my LG-VM696


----------



## jvarnell

this has nothing to do with the partys.  it has to do with how stuff is formed.  if it was a pure democricy we would vote on every law but as a democratic republic we vote for those that vote for us or should vote for us.


----------



## jwhoff

dew_time said:


> No one has mentioned the shift in the political parties over the last 200 years. I seem to remember that what was once the republic party that is being spoken of here is actually todays democratic party and vice versa. The names may be the same however the agendas have reversed and as I recall it was all based on who could get the votes. So, based on that, if you want to vote for what this country was founded on and what the founding father intended on building for this nation... you would have to vote for the democratic party. Please don't blow a gasket over this as I am a current day replublican who is only putting his 2 cents in.
> Sent from my LG-VM696



Very true.  Years ago I attended a week-long seminar in Lenox, Massachusetts.  While there, after dinner one evening I was talking with a few gentlemen in a smoking room just off the main dining hall.  There was a huge fireplace in the room.  While watching the fire I looked above the mantle and saw a brass plaque placed there by the historical society of Massachusetts.  

The plaque stated that on a certain day in a certain year the Republican Party had been formed following a meeting of political minded people from across the nation.  Western Mass is the home of very liberal, very independent minded and resourceful people.  It seems odd that today's Republican Party could possibly have organized itself in such a place.  

We joked about the paradox for a while but eventually acknowledge the fact that the Republican Party, in its youth, was the party of Abraham Lincoln and the progressives of the day.  So, yes brother you are very right in your statement.


----------



## dew_time

jwhoff said:


> Very true.  Years ago I attended a week-long seminar in Lenox, Massachusetts.  While there, after dinner one evening I was talking with a few gentlemen in a smoking room just off the main dining hall.  There was a huge fireplace in the room.  While watching the fire I looked above the mantle and saw a brass plaque placed there by the historical society of Massachusetts.
> 
> The plaque stated that on a certain day in a certain year the Republican Party had been formed following a meeting of political minded people from across the nation.  Western Mass is the home of very liberal, very independent minded and resourceful people.  It seems odd that today's Republican Party could possibly have organized itself in such a place.
> 
> We joked about the paradox for a while but eventually acknowledge the fact that the Republican Party, in its youth, was the party of Abraham Lincoln and the progressives of the day.  So, yes brother you are very right in your statement.



Thank you for this story brother Hoff. There are two things that I have studied my whole life. Politics(including he history of) and the other is mechanical engineering. 

I fully enjoyed reading this topic but was suprised to not find any of these facts brought up. 

Sent from my LG-VM696


----------



## dew_time

jvarnell said:


> this has nothing to do with the partys.  it has to do with how stuff is formed.  if it was a pure democricy we would vote on every law but as a democratic republic we vote for those that vote for us or should vote for us.



And yes... my comment has everything to do with the topic as it was posted and most on the comments added. 

Sent from my LG-VM696


----------



## BryanMaloney

A republic is not the same thing as a representative/indirect democracy. What matters are two things:

Is political power considered "res publica"--something that no person nor group of people, no matter how large, actually can own.
Is the exercise of political power institutionally limited.

In the USA, no majority, no matter how large, owns political power as a possession. It is not permitted. The matter of government is something that is meant to belong to us all as a whole, without division or concentration.

In the USA, no majority can legally and legitimately operate with caprice. Our Constitution places limits upon the power of government.

That our exercise of government involves elected representatives in no way makes us a republic--that is merely a surface means. However, the apparatchiks who run public schools would rather put things in that way than explain that our government is not supposed to be run by special interest groups and that our government is not supposed to be all-powerful.


----------



## dfreybur

Asking if the US is a democracy or a republic is like asking if today is a weekday or a Friday.  The answer is yes to both.  Democracy is the broader set.  Republic is the narrower set.

Republic is the next level of description down - an indirect democracy.  The levels after that are what type of republic.  The US is a federal republic in that it is composed of both states that are republics and direct citizens.  The US is a Roman derived republic in that it is not a Parliamentary system.  The US is a Constitutional republic in that it is limited - Bro Bryan asserts that being limited means not being a republic.  No, being limited means being a specific type of republic as opposed to democratic republics that are unlimited and tend to quickly become dictatorships with elections for legislators of nominal authority.

Yep, republics include dictatorships.  Strange and very unstable but what's what history teaches.  The more direct or less limited the sub-type of democracy the faster they devolve into it.  The UK has managed a lot of stability by being a hybrid form that includes non-democratic principles, quite the conundrum that it works so well.  The US has managed for two and a quarter centuries so far bu the trend has matched the predictions of history books.  The Soviet Union with its unlimited republic was actually democratic for a very short time after it was formed but it continued to have an elected legislature the whole time it existed.


----------



## BryanMaloney

I asserted that being limited specifically means being a Republic. Any "democracy", even an indirect democracy without institutional limits is still just a mobocracy, not a republic.


----------



## BryanMaloney

It should be noted, that under the terms of monarchism, any state that is not a hereditary monarchy is automatically a "republic". Thus, a lot of states could be called "republics" that are actually just dictatorships.


----------



## dew_time

BryanMaloney said:


> It should be noted, that under the terms of monarchism, any state that is not a hereditary monarchy is automatically a "republic". Thus, a lot of states could be called "republics" that are actually just dictatorships.



The peoples dictatorship. ...

Doug Jewell
Entered Apprentice
Reynoldsburg  #340
Ohio Grand Lodge of The F&AM


----------



## jvarnell

The US is a democratic republic which mean we elect our representatives and a dictator doesn't represent us.  if it was a pure democracy a majority could vote to take money from one group and give it to another.  oh.....my.....what's up with that.


----------



## BryanMaloney

jvarnell said:


> The US is a democratic republic which mean we elect our representatives and a dictator doesn't represent us.  if it was a pure democracy a majority could vote to take money from one group and give it to another.  oh.....my.....what's up with that.



If it were a pure democracy, the majority could vote to simply round up a minority, send them to camps, and exterminate them. We're not at that stage. We are in danger of becoming a democracy, but we're not there.


----------



## BryanMaloney

Just to revive a dead horse so we can beat it again. I would put forth that a "republic" is not the same thing as an "indirect democracy". Leftists want us to believe the two are the same so they can impose their "democracy" on us all and abolish the Republic in practice, if not explicitly. In a Republic, political power is the property of all, not of each. In a democracy, political power is the property of each. What is the difference? In a Republic, the majority is constitutionally constrained to use their control of political power in trust for all--including for the minority that disagrees with them. Thus, in a representative/indirect democratic republic, a "speech code" that makes it illegal to say unpopular things would be, itself illegal and unenforceable. In a representative/indirect democracy, there would be no constitutional limits on the authority of government, so the "speech code" would be legal. In an indirect democratic republic, it would be illegal to round up people who simply disagree with a President's health care "reform" law--any attempt by government to do so would be a constitutional (and Constitutional) violation*. In an indirect democracy, the government could legally do this, so long as a majority of the elected representatives went along with it. A Republic recognizes a hierarchy of law--some laws automatically have precedence over all other laws, and that government can be, should be, and is constitutionally/Constitutionally limited in its powers and exercise of powers.

Leftists want us to forget this, so leftists lie and tell is that an indirect/representative democracy is all there is to a republic. That way, they can have their all-powerful state and still claim to be a "republic". It's a very simplistic definition, so it's easy to get people to swallow it. The traditional American definition of a republic is not so simplistic, so people don't want to hear it.

*I used "constitutional" and "Constitutional" twice to distinguish between an explicitly written "Constitution" and the underlying body of "greater law" that traditionally was thought of as a "constitution" before it became the fashion to have explicitly written "Constitutions".


----------



## BroBook

Michael Neumann said:


> Has anyone read _The Mystery Of The Aleph: Mathematics, the Kabbalah, and the Search for Infinity_?
> 
> Great read, mathematics centered but it brings up a mathematician that was friends with Einstein, Cantor. He worked out a method of bringing the US into a Dictatorship while making it seem as though the government was abiding by the Constitution through requesting a series of concessions in the name of security. I bring it up because it appears our government has read this book as well...



No!!!


My Freemasonry


----------



## BroBook

We are both and neither we are unique in the world our ( people who live here) big problem is that we keep forgetting that our beliefs are for us and not to force others to adapt to our beliefs  
My instructor had a saying "we are fighting for a democracy "  whatever that meant me personally I would vote for TRUTH and let it do what it do!!!


My Freemasonry


----------



## jwhoff

Reviving a dead horse ... or getting your gerrymandered ax back out to grind it.

It may be time for some of us on the other side of this argument to tell you point blank:

Don't Tread on Me!


Here's a thought, why don't we use this website for masonic topics and keep the ax in your closet for other mediums.


----------



## JTM

BroBook said:


> We are both and neither we are unique in the world our ( people who live here) big problem is that we keep forgetting that our beliefs are for us and not to force others to adapt to our beliefs
> My instructor had a saying "we are fighting for a democracy "  whatever that meant me personally I would vote for TRUTH and let it do what it do!!!
> 
> 
> My Freemasonry



We are talking about the rule of law and the form of government that we have, correct?

For me this is a common misconception, or at least, this statement is used as the basis for a logical fallacy.  "Not to force others to adapt to our beliefs." 

Our founding fathers believed that there was definitely a right way and a wrong way to doing things.  Dissenters may not "believe" in the law, but they sure are forced to follow it, same as everybody else...


----------



## Bro Darren

It's a strong rule in Australia that political talk is NEVER to enter the Lodge or be spoken of when brothers meet to discuss non masonry topics. 


My Freemasonry


----------



## BryanMaloney

jwhoff said:


> Reviving a dead horse ... or getting your gerrymandered ax back out to grind it.
> 
> It may be time for some of us on the other side of this argument to tell you point blank:
> 
> Don't Tread on Me!



You are saying that we are not a Republic but that we are an unlimited democracy, in which a simple majority can legally ride roughshod over the minority? Because that is the "other side" from my own standpoint.


----------



## JTM

D4rr3n said:


> It's a strong rule in Australia that political talk is NEVER to enter the Lodge or be spoken of when brothers meet to discuss non masonry topics.
> 
> 
> My Freemasonry


  Ya'll have strong rules and weak rules there?  

It's a rule here that we can't talk about religion or politics inside of a lodge.  

Here in Texas at least, once lodge is over, we do it until the sun comes up.


----------



## Bro Darren

JTM said:


> Ya'll have strong rules and weak rules there?
> 
> It's a rule here that we can't talk about religion or politics inside of a lodge.
> 
> Here in Texas at least, once lodge is over, we do it until the sun comes up.



Its very strict - History has show us that individual political views are very personal and to some, very precious.. We do not discuss as it can lead to disunity


----------



## jwhoff

BryanMaloney said:


> You are saying that we are not a Republic but that we are an unlimited democracy, in which a simple majority can legally ride roughshod over the minority? Because that is the "other side" from my own standpoint.




Interesting.  I pushed the Republic button.  

I just like the Aussie comment above.


----------



## jwhoff

Thank you brother!  

Finally something that makes sense. 

The further we look into this thing the more we may find that our form of government is a mixture of many of these purist definitions.  I know of no nation ruled by one of the structured definitions listed in The ISM textbook. 

 Russia under "communism" and today is run by an oligarchy.  The United States has deep underlying trends of both capitalism and socialism.  Neither of which we should let get out of control.  Even Iran is not a pure theocracy.  Witness its three-way struggle of Islam, a growing middle class and the oligarchy ruling class.  

And, should our personal fears ever waver, we will find good AND bad in each of these pure ISM definitions.  Much like making a living off the sale of guns and sacret texts the world over, those who rely on fear and ignorance to spread their unjust hatreds try to push us_ all _into a little box: the better to pick us off one by one to satisfy their personal ambitions.  Make no mistake, these people are our true enemies!

The fact is that our natural tendency is to break ourselves up into tribal groups.  Not a good ideal in a world inhabited by near eight billion people in the midst of an information age that notifies a Nordic medical assistant of the thoughts of an Egyptian activist swayed by the teachings of an American populist who adheres to the teachings of a late 19th century economists who was reacting to the European empires and American Tea Pot Dome scandal of his day.  

Add any argument you wish into the above statement, the result is the same.  It is a brave new world and we are running head long into another dark ages brought on by our tribal fears, ignorance and hatred.   

Look only to the many times we, as people, have been snookered into buying into some CAUSE only to find out later that we had again been had. 

And, as is the human nature, we are blaming the results on each other and NOT OURSELVES.  Again, I charge us who are free as negligent!  Time to quit BRAYING about your inheritance and start EARNING it gentlemen.

Say, if I were in total power and if I were confronted with The Information Age, I think that I might cut my losses and use it to my advantage.

Lets see:
   1)  They can be controlled by their natural traits.
   2)  I'll use ignorance and tribalism ... those direct results of the primal motive_ fear_.
3) I know they are lazy and sheep by nature.
   3)  I can get to more of them through this new medium.
   4)  Boy oh boy, I can_ really _use this one against them.

-30-
now there's a symbol for you.


----------



## jwhoff

Brother Dalinkou is on the right track.

If I weren't careful I just might charge him with being a purist "Age of Enlightenment" mason.

Logical thought processes, looking for deeper meanings:  all symptoms of that uncontrollable understanding those dastardly masons were so rightly charged with.  

Such posts, as I have seen among may of these contributors, steals my heart for the fight ahead.

Still there are those others ... :sneaky2:


----------



## Bro Darren

jwhoff said:


> Thank you brother!
> 
> Finally something that makes sense.
> 
> The further we look into this thing the more we may find that our form of government is a mixture of many of these purist definitions.  I know of no nation ruled by one of the structured definitions listed in The ISM textbook.
> 
> Russia under "communism" and today is run by an oligarchy.  The United States has deep underlying trends of both capitalism and socialism.  Neither of which we should let get out of control.  Even Iran is not a pure theocracy.  Witness its three-way struggle of Islam, a growing middle class and the oligarchy ruling class.
> 
> And, should our personal fears ever waver, we will find good AND bad in each of these pure ISM definitions.  Much like making a living off the sale of guns and sacret texts the world over, those who rely on fear and ignorance to spread their unjust hatreds try to push us_ all _into a little box: the better to pick us off one by one to satisfy their personal ambitions.  Make no mistake, these people are our true enemies!
> 
> The fact is that our natural tendency is to break ourselves up into tribal groups.  Not a good ideal in a world inhabited by near eight billion people in the midst of an information age that notifies a Nordic medical assistant of the thoughts of an Egyptian activist swayed by the teachings of an American populist who adheres to the teachings of a late 19th century economists who was reacting to the European empires and American Tea Pot Dome scandal of his day.
> 
> Add any argument you wish into the above statement, the result is the same.  It is a brave new world and we are running head long into another dark ages brought on by our tribal fears, ignorance and hatred.
> 
> Look only to the many times we, as people, have been snookered into buying into some CAUSE only to find out later that we had again been had.
> 
> And, as is the human nature, we are blaming the results on each other and NOT OURSELVES.  Again, I charge us who are free as negligent!  Time to quit BRAYING about your inheritance and start EARNING it gentlemen.
> 
> Say, if I were in total power and if I were confronted with The Information Age, I think that I might cut my losses and use it to my advantage.
> 
> Lets see:
> 1)  They can be controlled by their natural traits.
> 2)  I'll use ignorance and tribalism ... those direct results of the primal motive_ fear_.
> 3) I know they are lazy and sheep by nature.
> 3)  I can get to more of them through this new medium.
> 4)  Boy oh boy, I can_ really _use this one against them.
> 
> -30-
> now there's a symbol for you.



Amazing stuff right there - Thank you!

These exact same principles are what drives Anti-Masonic discussions, misconceptions and misinformation that is so ramped today. Those that can master fear and use it correctly, will always attract followers and gain simple control over their lives. By using jwhoff's "Lets see:" principles, leaders all over the world have and still do treat the masses like ignorant sheep and unfortunately most of us are.  

Ignorance is bliss as long as you don't take off the blindfold and most choose not to take the blindfold off as they do not want to accept that they are ignorant or sheep!


----------



## BryanMaloney

A republic can be socialist or capitalist--neither determines the other. If the constitution of that republic is such that socialism is not prohibited nor capitalism enshrined, then the duly elected representatives can within the boundaries of constitutional constraint, impose socialism. That's the great risk of any form of government in which the people have some say--they might say something foolish or something you don't like. However, I would rather take that risk than be under some central power that pretends to omniscience and omnipotence.


----------



## BryanMaloney

jwhoff said:


> 1)  They can be controlled by their natural traits.
> 2)  I'll use ignorance and tribalism ... those direct results of the primal motive_ fear_.
> 3) I know they are lazy and sheep by nature.
> 3)  I can get to more of them through this new medium.
> 4)  Boy oh boy, I can_ really _use this one against them.



Been listening to Limbaugh and Maddow and taking notes? Looks like somebody else is actually already implementing the nightmare scenario you would want to avoid.


----------



## jwhoff

Agreed brother!

Both Fox and MSNBC spread misinformation and hatred.  They make money catering to the two LOUD MOUTH extremes of the greater populous.    Those who wish to prey upon our tribal instincts.

Anyone care to look up and dissect President Ike's parting speech on the subject of demagoguery?  

That warning is much more pertinent in today's environment than the day he issued it to the the American people.  Time to wake up and become more circumspect ... or loose our freedom to one of these fringe groups.  

Freedom is not cheap.  And, we're not going to be able to bray, brag, and ride the tailcoats of those who actually EARNED it much longer.  When one thinks it's in his best interest to abuse others to save his own freedom, he is on marked time.

Wake up America.  You've lost your way.  And, as masons, it's time we started thinking over our obligation of The Golden Rule, so eloquently brought to our attention at the reception door of the second degree.  

As brethren of this craft, we need to get our butts back to work "working" that Fellowcraft degree.  Find out why and what it means to prepare oneself to be a strength in the wall of brotherhood.  

Gentlemen, the world depends on you!  YOU are the last bastion, the very last hope to bring enlightenment to the world.  You can't do that by buying into every dog and pony show coming down main street.  You are charged by that degree and those who went before you to enlighten yourself and stand strong against this evil.  No matter what side of the spectrum it occupies.  

Folks these demagogues want one thing, CONTROL.  They will use any angle, any weakness in your armor to take control.  Whether that weakness comes from your left or your right.  

Freedom is a precious, fleeing target.  It is never going to be easy to obtain or hold on to.  When you see scapegoats and targets among your neighbors it is time to reconsider your direction.


----------



## Bill Rose

SMIB Brother


Sent From My Freemasonry Mobile App


----------



## jjjjjggggg

Thanks wingnut, great explanation!


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## BroBook

Real talk my brother!!!


Bro Book


----------

