Pop Quiz: What form of government is the United States?

If you answered a "democracy" - Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep. 

Technically speaking, the USA was founded as a "Constitutional Republic." However, it uses democratic elections/means to ELECT OFFICIALS who must act according to constitutional law that limits governmental powers over the people. That's a big difference. A democracy, on the other hand, is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner!!!

The USA is a Constitutional Republic wherein your rights, as an individual, are protected against being taken away by the government or anyone else. They are protected or enshrined in a Bill of Rights. Otherwise, people can vote away your rights just because they're a majority. On the receiving end, that's called "persecution," isn't it?

Think about it. Yes, in a pure democracy, your rights can be voted away or taken away, and thus a majority can control or suppress a minority. If you're that minority, by definition you are not free. Who said you're "free" in a democracy if someone just took away your rights? 

Big distinction. That's why people have to break the Pavlovian habit opf saying "Democracry, Democracy" and substitute for it "CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC."

The Founding Fathers of the US hated  democracy as the worst form of government you can have because in a democracy  the majority rules, and the 51% majority can be a tyrant over the other 49% stripping them of everything in the name of "democracy - majority rules." So don't get this wrong in the future. Stop repeating "Demopcracy" and start saying "Constitutional Republic with a Bill of Rights." Remember what Benjamin Franklin said so that you always get it right: "A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

Get it? Democracy is not synomous with freedom. Protected individual rights are synonomous with freedom ….

In a  democracy (not a Constitutional Republic, mind you), if  the majority of 51% (or the government saying it's "acting for the common good") decides to deprive you of some rights, then you're out of luck. You can lose your freedom of speech, property, the right to protect and defend yourself and so forth. That's what people are presently worried about, because it is happening. 

Democracies are tyrannies, so thought our Founding Fathers, but  Constitutional Republics protect you from tyrannies. However, to elect candidates to office, yes you use democratic elections….elections without voter fraud because of electronic counting machines that are rigged to choose pre-selected winners.

Why do most people get this wrong?  Watch the Aaron Russo video and learn a bit as to what's going on. Really it's worth your time. It's really, really, really that good. Stay with it to the end because it takes a while to get into the meat.

So the US is a Constitutional Republic, but there are cycles of history (see Schlesinger's Cycles of American History as one such synopsis) wherein there is an ebb and flow of affairs, and in particular, there are always moves to strip away the rights of people bit by bit without their knowing. England has turned into a virtual police state because of this, and the US is following suit. That's why people hope they have a free and independent judicial system that follows the rule of law, and if it doesn't, the people have the option of

(1) jury nullification and

(2) instituting laws for judicial accountability wherein judges and prosecutors can be brought up on charges for not following the law.

I think it's time to look at both of these again. Look at that District Attorney  Mike Nifong , for instance, who kept pursing the innocent Duke lacrosse players (Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans ) on rape charges when some were not even at the scene of the incident, proven by video cameras of banking activities and so forth.

Frankly, most people don't care about any of this. As my teacher used to say, most people just want to have a chance in life, want to be able to get along with their lives (jobs need to be available) with very little interference from the state and have access to justice when they need it. True, true. As I point out in my book on Kuan Tzu, today everyone shouts DEMOCRACY as supposedly the cure-all for the world. In earlier times this was Christianity, Industrialization, Capitalism and other things in turn … each of which ultimately proved lacking as the "savior of the world."

The problem is, there are always people behind the scene who crave power and control, or believe they know what's best for social engineering (see Intellectuals, by Paul Johnson) and want to warp things this way or that. These are people who because of their wealth or position, believe that they now have the wisdom conferred on them to be able to make conclusions in these areas, or the rights to so order them. Just because they're rich they now think they're wise…or entitled to call the shots for others.

Galbraith even wrote about this saying the newly found rich, because of their newly found wealth, often start assuming that because of their financial success they possess a degree of wisdom and intelligence extending to all sorts of affairs of which they know nothing. Their cultivation and study, I dare say, is quite lacking. As my Teacher once said about the Chinese who wanted to change the Chinese writing system, only after you were already a master of many forms of Chinese  writing through the dynasties, and understood the ins and outs, only then you might be a little qualified to discuss matters.

A related issue I often see – some people mistakenly try to correct every little thing in the world when sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone, despite the slippage of injustice here and there. As Taoism says,  water must circulate freely  and its flow should not unduly be obstructed. Where would you be if you had to fill out a Form 1040 for giving the neighbor's kid $20 for mowing the lawn to help him out some  Saturday weekend? Pleasssssse - give me a break. The more legalistic you get, the more the black market will grow as a necessity because it MUST exist, it is always there just as there is always a certain minimum amount of unempoyment. History has shown this time and again.

Neveretheless, people without wisdom but with good intentions want laws to proliferate here and there to the extent, as was shown in the Legalism period of Chinese history and in certain Roman periods,  that everyone becomes guilty of something just by virtue of living – everyone becomes an unindicted felon. In ancient Assyria, I believe it was,  the eventual size of the government  bureaucracy necessary to collect taxes and institute the laws became so overhwelming that this burden  destroyed the Empire.

This proliferation of laws allows for three major things to happen:

1. Useless and burdensome government bureacracy, oversight and control grows and Grows and GROWS

2. Everyone loses respect for the law (since everyone must break the law to survive), which is the worst possible thing to happen because in effect it now means you have NO LAWS because no one's following them (everyone is a criminal, so why bother anymore) — you've wrecked the whole system — the extreme of yang becomes yin and vica versa … see China as a modern example

3. It allows for the arbitrary exercise of government power via selective prosecution - the government can come and get you anytime they want (it reminds me of the story by Jimmy Rogers in Investment Biker where he needs the local currency of some country for some transaction, the government official directs him to the black market as the only means available, and then tries to arrest him for the transaction afterwards in order to shake him down for a bribe - LOL)

That's why I don't believe we should try to legislate everything "bad" out of existence. Some things are just best left alone - the appendage of the word "hate" onto crimes being just another such category subject to abuse. I really despise this one, and know the secret design behind the move. Just ask yourself — are not the laws good enough that if you are caught for buglarizing or killing someone you will be punished for it?   The appendage of "hate" is redundant…and people without wisdom thinking don't see what it's being set up to be eventually used for.

Frankly, I agree with Aaron Russo that if I don't commit violence, theft or fraud against another human being, I should be able to live my life as I wish making all the mistakes I must in the quest for self-improvement. Otherwise, the road of cultviation will eventually be curtailed, too, as it makes you an independent being free of the system. I don't need someone else telling me how to live my life, or how I must go about healing myself if I'm sick, or what I'm not allowed to eat (raw milk illegal? we've drunk it for thousands of years). I don't want to be under Communism, and not under Socialism either.

What about you? 

I remember reading Ernst Gombecht's The Story of Art, or one of his other works, and his talking to friends who worked in the Nazi bureaucracy. Gombrecht asked them if they believed in all the things done and they aid, "Well no, of course,  but you know we have families to support. You know how it is" That's how and why people go along with the evil in the world. It seems so ordinary, but people almost always do go along with wrong things saying, "Well, we're civil servants and we all have families to support." That's why you need a Bill of Rights, a Constitutional Republic, free and independent juries,   the ability to issue citizen  arrests, jury nullification, whistleblowers need to be protected and so forth…

If you can find the quote then let me know…I surrounded by so many books here that I couldn't find either of my copies of his books.

That's how it happens. People don't have the courage to stand up and say "No, this is wrong." They don't realize that they will have to pay the karmic price either way - the karma of refusing, painful as it may be, is actually far less than doing what they know is wrong because they will reap that result themselves directly when the time comes due.

You may look at things with only the short term consequencs in mind, but you cannot escape karma. That's why sages refuse to do what is wrong, even upon penalty of death. You can kill him (be forewarned that you  reap terrible karma for killing, persecuting, or jailing a sage, as Buddha warned), but you cannot force a sage to do anything.

Socrates refused to arrest a man named Leon of Salimis, though ordered by the Thirty Tyrants. Socrates went home while the others obeyed the order, and went home when given the orders even though he knew it might mean his death. He simply refused to do evil, but the ruling democracy was making all the leaders of Athens perform these illegal arrests so that everyone was thus guilty of some blame.  You have your own choices in life. Think about it. Socrates said, "I refused to do what I knew to be wrong, even thoug it might cost me my life."

Once again, think about it. Like wathcing the actor Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men, that IS the true fiber of the American Republic.

Moral: Stop shouting "Democracy, Democracy" and start shouting, "Constitutional Republic. Protect our Rights!"