People love to say they are for "the people", a government of, for and by "the people".
Do they really believe in majority rule? Or only when majority is on their side?
If we embraced majority rule, wouldn't Bible belt states always ban gay marriage and abortion? Or, wouldn't we have always maintained Jim Crow because most white people didn't care?
Please save the "we are not a democracy, we are a Republic" preach to yourself, I KNOW THAT.
My question here today is, do people who say they are for democracy (mostly people who claim to be 'liberals'), really know what they are standing for?
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 449 reads
****
To answer the question in your post directly, yes I believe in democracy and yes I know what I believe in.
The American democracy is a system of representative government by popular election. I believe that it is the best system, though imperfect, for guaranteeing the natural rights of the citizenry while ably representing their will.
-Dommy
http://dinodinodino.wordpress.com
Don't you think that the American representative democracy/republic/Constitution has allowed, in just 200+ years, us to become the large mercantilist, imperialist nation which we are today by giving the government too much power. We are about to commit an act of war against Iran and no one except the misguided want to be in Iraq, yet how do these actions in ANY way represent the will of the people? Aren't they, in fact, the exact opposite of the will of the people? Or most importantly, is there a collective will which any politician can ascertain? There is not. Collectively, people most definitely don't have a will. They are led.
Why does it matter when people don't care enough to participate anyway?
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
While the application of the Constitution has rarely, if ever, been perfect, its basic principles I do believe in.
The huge increase in the size of the government, which you describe, is a result of the fact that that indeed does seem to be the will of the people. Simply put, many people profit from larger government, and not just those would-be welfare collectors.
But there are constitutional breaks on government growth. Most people just don't want to press them.
-dommy
http://dinodinodino.wordpress.com
Who all here would consider themselves anarchist? I consider myself anarchist, and by that I mean without an arbitrary territorial monopoly on the use of force. I think that there are irreconcilable differences with the alternative. Government doesn't exist by the desire of the people but on their apathy. And the question always comes up, who polices the police? Who governs the government? The people? But who governs the people? The government. An agreement can't arbitrate itself.
I do not think most think about the philosophy behind government. The majority think the United States is all about special interest groups. As citizens, you pick your special interest group and push for what you want as that special interest. The majority do not think about individual rights. Only special interest matters. Most would say they support majority rule. The majority do not know we have a Constitution which limits the majority. The majority think the idea of personal freedom is that it is a special interest group which has gotten special rights for themselves.
I do not think most voters understand the concept of government as laid out with the Constitution. Voters most certainly do not support the concept of the Constitution with their votes. Voters do not care if the candidate follows the Constitution or not, as long as each voter perceives the candidate will support their special interest group they identify with.
We need to decrease the power of special interest in our government.
( My definition of special interest: group which intends to use government to give themselves an advantage over others. The opposite of altruism. )
As admirable as your past efforts have been (and I've tried to reason with people myself), you and I are each just one person. We can't compete with the propaganda machine. What I am saying is that BTM represents building our own propaganda machine - and it will be able to compete. Our message is infinitely more attractive. THe other one ultimately leaves people depressed - always feeling like they are choosing the lesser of two evils. Our message says that those "dilemmas" don't exist - that individual liberty and personal responsibility defeats all evils. Most people haven't heard the message in their whole lives - a media machine preaching it can help bring it to mass amounts of people. THat's all I am saying. We do have to change the minds of the American people and we are going to have to use 21st century methods to do so. We seem to be way ahead of the curve using the internet for politics. BTM is right on the money going after the REAL educator - the media. Once we are a visible part of the media we are a force to be reckoned with.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Honestly, I don't care much for democracy. It's just as capable of oppression as autocracy, but with the added 'benefit' of the majority's social sanction. As Tom Mullen pointed out, our Constitution is written to restrict democracy. I'm sure socialism would be rampant in the worst forms is democractic institutions weren't tied down in any way. I'm not just talking about the soft socialism we see today in Europe, but hardcore socialism with breadlines and prison camps. I certainly favor a democracy or republic over dictatorship, but it is by no means perfect or infallible. I believe in Constitutional limits on democracy to prevent hot-headed, emotional action on the part of the masses that would harm society or innocent individuals. My largest qualm with our current Constitution is that it doesn't stipulate consequences for violating those rules, so our federal government has continued to do so more and more over the years. In my view, the Constitution should clearly elaborate violations and punishments by officials to give them disincentives to ignore it. "High crimes and misdemeanors" and "impeachment" just don't cut it.
Finally somebody with a brain talking here
"My largest qualm with our current Constitution is that it doesn't stipulate consequences for violating those rules,"
EXACTLY. So what if we have a Constitution that says we are protected from dumbass voters and eavesdropping? What do we do if our servants violate it? Do we get to lynch them ?
But, even if you outlined the punishments for violating the Constitution, you still need a party or action to enforce this punishment, because people who violate rules violate them altogether. (Ex: if the law says a thief is to have his arms cut off, those who violated the law against theft will ignore the law against cutting arms as well, so what do we do?)
Cynical,
The meaning of your screen name is not lost in all of this. It is very fair for you to question the validity, importance, and strength of this "piece of paper". If it weren't for people like you who do question these things, then we would exist as a lemming society that blindly accepts the fate that the government determines
is for our best... We know that to not be true.
Lost in all of this talk is the fact that our elected officials are just that - elected officials. They are our employees. They are our representatives whose sole purpose is to represent us, the constituents, in matters of domestic and foreign affairs. They are not the employees of the lobbyists. They are not the employees of the President. We the people sign their paychecks, and we the people determine their employment status within the construct of the governmental system outlined by the "piece of paper". As citizens of the United States
of America - as the boss, we hold the power to FIRE our subordinates who do not perform their duties as they were hired to do (in the form of not re-electing, or even impeaching and demanding their removal from office). As a civilized society, we understand that this should be accomplished through non-violent means, but even as our history has shown, force has been just as effective of a method (but we're not ready to go their -- yet).
The entire reason our country sought sovereign independence from the British crown was
founded in the Magna Carta (1215) when (using the Magna Carta as a basis) our own founding fathers didn't receive just response for their petition for redress of grievances against the King of Britain - and thus declared America's independence in 1776.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [...] But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - Declaration of Independence, 1776
This right to petition our government is also a right protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
On June 30th, 2008, all 535 members of Congress were delivered a petition for a redress of grievances in 7 key areas (demanding a response within 40 days - or by August 8, 2008) which included illegal immigration, the Federal Reserve, Taxation, the Patriot Act, illegal declarations of war, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and the North American Union. Of course one could make a case that there are other hot topics, but these were the seven deemed to be the most pressing right now and the ones that the We The People Foundation deemed the most important to petition.
Now, what happens next?
1) Our congressmen/women respond -- either truthfully or by lying.
(Either way, the truth will come to light as to their understanding of what their role is as our employees, and moreover, the truth will come to light as to their acknowledgement of the unconstitutionality of their work as a legislative body).
2) Our congressmen/women will not respond (or will harshly criticize this effort, resulting in a non-response) -- This is the EXACT reason our country sought independence 232 years ago - and further demonstrates our government's negligence regarding their constitutional duties.
My guess is that you can count on one hand, the number of response that will be returned, with Ron Paul's being the first returned.
This won't hit the MSM -- but you can be sure that this effort will not be in vain - because it affects everyone's basic constitutional rights.
I know that is long and drawn out, but the bottom line is, we FIRE them - and in building up to that point, we strengthen our case to do so by petitioning them legally and we make the knowledge of this petition effort public in an effort to educate the lemming masses. We are the party who will determine the action to carry out the punishment. We are the boss. We are the people.
Being cynical is OK because anyone who trusts their government is already lost.
"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." - Andrew Jackson, 1837
http://givemeliberty.org/revolution
Here...let me try to match your post's length, but get it right.
"DeltaRho2K" (can't you pick a fake name like Bob if you're scared to use your real name?) you don't just fire the scoundrel who is violating law to the tune of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives lost, etc. Impeachment and 'throwing the bums out' are political acts. Political acts are insufficient enforcement action by We The People against those who are egregiously, perennially, remorselessly violating the Constitution for the United States of America.
When criminals get a hand-slap ("Oh, you are SO fired, buddy boy!!") instead of time in prison and losing all they own, they are almost certainly going to continue their life of crime. So firing them is not enough; political solutions are not only insufficient; they are IMMORAL at this hour.
However florid his statesman's language or however sincerely-held his goals, Bob Schulz and his "petition for redress of grievances" is positively obstructing serious, EFFECTIVE national reform at this late date. I don't believe we have the leisure for half a dozen more tries at restoring our Constitution against these domestic enemies (who swore to preserve, protect, and defend it!). Very wicked people are also very shrewd; the folks that own those members of Congress will just ratchet to the level necessary to restore their hegemonic leverage.
Our only chance of beating the odds of history (against long-lived republics) is the grace of God. Perhaps if enough of us are humbly repentant and very diligent, a critical mass of American citizens will begin to show uncommon shrewdness ourselves. And -- miracle of miracles -- we will begin to exert bone-crushing power against corruption without firing a shot or violating a law.
If a man is convicted of a multi-trillion-dollar fraud, and of conspiracy to defraud, and of obstruction of justice and a half-dozen other high crimes, the politician's ace-in-the-hole has always been 'sovereign immunity' at one level or another. Though a record number of former members of Congress are now in prison for various crimes -- almost every one of them should be!
THAT is what a sane, law-abiding people does to criminals. NOT merely impeach them and let them retire to their estates and offshore trusts, stolen from the people they pretended to 'serve'!
This is the heart of the America Again! project, "DeltaSigma5K": start calling them home to hear the criminal charges publicly read, and if they do not vow publicly to immediately desist and reform, then begin IMMEDIATELY building the indictment in the STATE courts under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, asserting our Original Jurisdiction of the highest order (we the people and the particular State of America being the creator parties of the Constitution that has been so violated by this particular federal perpetrator).
Has anything like this been done before? No. But Thomas Jefferson suggests it in the 1799 Kentucky Resolution; if Adams hadn't gotten his fascist butt kicked politically RE his preposterous Alien & Sedition Acts, I'm convinced Jefferson would have raised the public support to start kicking legislators into the prisons of their States.
What Congress has been doing, and American presidents have been doing for at least three generations now (arguably since Lincoln) calls for SERIOUS citizen and State enforcement of the U.S. Constitution. As Jefferson said in the aforementioned treatise, we are the ONLY parties that can lawfully judge of its infraction, and lawfully exact proper remedy.
You throw a few dozen criminals in state prisons and confiscate all their assets, and see how quickly the worm turns in these Fifty Sovereign States of America!
Pie in the sky? Nope; the America Again! project requires just a half-dozen serious citizens in each of the hometowns (US district seat) of every member of Congress. This handful of patriotic citizens needs to be able to convene a 4th of July shindig at the public library or city park, to read the America Again! Declaration. They need to work with the State D.A. (or if (s)he wimps out, directly with the State Grand Jury next sitting) to work up the criminal counts in the indictment. They need to subpoena the financial records of the member of Congress -- especially any trust beneficiary relationships in his family wherein (s)he may abscond wealth in case of "troubles".
Then you serve out chili dogs, fireworks, and enjoy the first real Independence Day you ever had. You're making American history right there on the level of Paul Revere!
www.america-again.blospot.com
I think in the same way the three branches of our government are design to act against each other, enforcing rules against violators in one branch should be carried out by agents of another branch. I don't know how else you could enforce such rules in a way that didn't pervert the motives of self-interested parties. Ideally you could write a clause into the Constitution that made all property of a violator forfeit to whomever brings him to justice, but then some people would become professional 'enforcers' willing to call anyone a violator just to loot them. It would be difficult to set up a contractural agreement that arbitrates itself.
and the other one (Jefferson), I'll pick the other Tom's solution.
I am not suggesting 'bounty hunting' at all. If my US representative or senator has committed high crimes against us (his Constituents and his State), Jefferson posits that we (People and State, the signatory parties to the Constitution that created and limits ALL the federal branches) are the only parties legally able to adjudicate the violation and apply remedy.
The State takes all of the crooked politician's goods; strips their bank accounts, trusts, and estate just as clean as a whistle. Puts them in the State's general fund, and sells off the non-cash assets to do the same. No one person would get a dime of the "booty".
The egregious violator of the Constitution -- the criminal (and that literally applies to the vast majority of the sitting members of the US House and US Senate) gets to serve however long a criminal sentence in his State Penitentiary as the particular State Judge and Grand Jury on his case decide. Some states are pretty easy on criminals; others are fed up with them and would be harsh.
But this would be, for the first time in American history, We the People and the Sovereign and united States of America actually enforcing the Law of the Land that has become a farce and a byword with those corrupt members of the U.S. Congress.
Note bene: This entails no firearms in the streets, or Molotov cocktails. Not even harsh words or tar-and-feathers. This is 100% in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Declaration of Independence, with the U.S. Constitution, and with 'normal' law enforcement (i.e., when it doesn't involve sneaky politicians who are often above the law). It is very easy to do: each group needs less than a dozen people if they're efficient and smart. Yes, it will raise hackles among lawyers and especially federal judges...but this is especially important because the federal courts are aiding and abetting commissions of the highest possible crimes against the Constitution, and have done so for generations. As Jefferson said, when this occurs (collusion in all three federal branches) ONLY the People and the States can claim original jurisdiction!
The coolest thing of all? Federal marshals might be hankering to spring those members of Congress out of their State Penitentiaries, but there is a barge-load of precedent where federal courts have refused jurisdiction, calling these "political" matters.
I think there's a huge opportunity here. If anyone reading this is an experienced prosecuting attorney, I'd like to chat with you a bit on this.
www.america-again.blogspot.com
That it's hard to define and set up an agreement to arbitrate itself.
Then this is no different than saying those with force win the fight, we only allow our government to get away with what they do today (much of which is executive and legislative conspiring together) because we're conditioned to believe violence is obsolete, and our system will always respect our rules to protect us.
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
In fact, most Americans would be quite surprised to learn what the founding fathers really thought about democracy. Any objective analysis would conclude that the founders’ feelings about democracy were somewhere between suspicion and contempt. Thomas Jefferson said,
“The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.”
James Madison said, “Democracy is the most vile form of government ... 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,”
And also,
“Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Government, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of Constituents.”
The founding fathers were ambivalent toward democracy. More shocking still is what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution say about democracy – nothing. Nowhere in our founding documents will you find the word democracy or the assertion, either implicit or explicit, that our government is a democracy.
Despite what we are told ad nauseum by politicians, television journalists, talk show hosts, and political activists, the United States of America has never been a democracy. Our government, contrary to what even many politicians seem to believe, is a constitutional republic. We choose our leaders using the democratic process of majority vote, but that is the extent to which the Unites States involves itself with democracy.
When you think about it, the only reason we have a Constitution is to protect us FROM Democracy. We would not need limits on power for elected officials chosen by majority vote if our aim was merely the rule of the majority. We'd just vote on everything. The only reason for a Constitution, granting some powers to government and denying all others (whether the majority wants them or not), is to limit the power of the majority. Our individual rights are unalienable - which means they cannot be taken away by any power - including majority vote.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Please, what good is a "god damn piece of paper" when people don't have guns to protect themselves and the government ignores it?
what? You don't have guns? I have all kinds of firearms from handguns to 'varmint' guns in .308 for those pesky varmints on two legs. My neighbors? Them, too; most of us have all the guns we need. Are you a convicted felon so they don't let you buy guns, or what?
I notice you don't use your real name and you wear a mask. Maybe that's part of it?
Seriously, I get that your whole persona is wrapped around a Rambo-type dealie. I get that. So everything starts looking like a firearm to you, right?
Tom Mullen is right on (below); because our forefathers used armed force against bad guys, we don't have to. Don't get me wrong; if you've read my stuff elsewhere on this forum you know that constitutional attorney Dr. Edwin Vieira's plan for reinstituting "Citizens' Homeland Security Associations" (proper, lawful Militias of the Several States) is a big part of the America Again! project.
On Independence Day, we would not just have chili dogs and fireworks and read the bill of criminal indictment against our member of Congress. We would also announce local sign up and training for the militia (which first requires that people be properly trained, and that the State legislation is duly passed to come back into line with the Constitution).
It's not either or, big guy. Stand down.
www.america-again.blogspot.com
I'm not getting what your reply has to do with my comment.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Of course I know we are a Republic and not a democracy, but what good is the Constitution or the law if people are too ignorant to know when the government ignores it (like today) and are unarmed to protect themselves?
It's easy to say "these are our rules" until I ask "or else what?". So, what IF the government violates the Constitution and punishes us for our exercising of freedom? Should we kill them?
All I'm saying is, aren't arms most important regardless of what system you're in? Didn't our fathers warn us that we only have freedom when our government fears us? And how is that different than dumb-ocracy when the government has to answer to the million man angry mob?
and at some point, that is the only option left. However, the founders didn't have a Constitution in place that guaranteed them these rights. They left us a system that gives us an option besides force. I don't think we have anywhere near exhausted that option. In fact, BTM is the first step in even exploring it. The spirit of liberty is indeed "a plant of rapid growth," as demonstrated by Ron Paul's success. Even though he only reached a small percentage of the people, practically everyone who heard him not only voted for him, but became a passionate political activist! I have never been involved in politics in my life and hadn't written anything not related to my business since I graduated from school, but his campaign inspired me and now I'm writing for this site, hosting a TV show, and speaking next week in Washington - all for free! I am doing this because liberty is an inspiring message. All we have to do is get it more exposure and the present, average American socialist will become an average American libertarian (for lack of a better word).
I think, to misquote noted socialist John Lennon, all we have to do is "Give Liberty a Chance." Most people haven't heard the message yet, but they're about to.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
We don't need them to force tyranny on us, we're so stupid we'll beg for it given the ignorance and poverty we have today.
"All we have to do is get it more exposure and the present, average American socialist will become an average American libertarian (for lack of a better word)."
Believe me, I've tried, over and over. I'm frankly done worrying about other people. This is not to say I've given up, just the opposite, I've considered that talking peacefully is not enough.
"The government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around".
We GET it about the firearms thingie, Cy, really!
Man, have you ever considered paintball, dude? Or even burning a couple hundred rounds at the range next weekend? You have some serious steam to blow off!
Is the whole Nical family like you, Cy?
I think part of the trouble here is I'm thinking in terms of what America is today, while you are talking about what America was founded as. You stated "but our foundation is not as a Democracy". Clearly this is true, and I don't recall arguing that point. I am arguing that the U.S. has shifted significantly over 200+ years.
Since we're fond of wikipedia, here's one for you:
Representative Democracy is a form of government founded on the principles of the people's representatives.[1] The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives—i.e., not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives.
In many representative democracies (Canada, the USA, UK, etc), representatives are most commonly chosen in elections by a plurality of those who are both eligible to cast votes and actually do so. A plurality means that a winning candidate has to win more votes than any other candidate in the race, but does not necessarily require a majority of the votes cast.
You've done a good job providing evidence for your case, but I think we're not trying to demonstrate the same thing. I'm talking about today whereas you're talking about the foundation. I agree with you completely on the original intent of the constitution and I apologize if I did not make that clear.
I realize the Pledge has the word "republic" in it. I bet most people who visit this site are fairly well versed in simple things like this. It's a standard Republican line to quote something like this in order to make the point that the U.S. was founded as a republic, because the founding fathers were in fear of democracy. All very true! But how much of what our founders designed is still true today? In fact, we've all seen so many quotes by the likes of Franklin and others warning us against many of the mistakes we have made in more modern times.
No need to be quite so snooty, I am enjoying your points. Most people of value enjoy good debate and hopefully everyone learns something in the process.
Oh and stop down arrowing me and up arrowing yourself :P
I wonder how much this discussion will matter in years to come as we slide down the slippery slope to ever more socialist tendencies.
Mike
a Democracy? I've always been under the impression that we were established as a Constitutional Republic... though I guess you could theoretically stretch it to suggest we are a Representative Democracy... Where did I put that dang history book?!?
The problem is that the American "majority" thinks we are a Democracy... and the government lets them think that way so they can continue to usurp rights and undermine the system of checks and balances that help to define our status as a Constitutional Republic.
Of course it's hard to have faith in the system. You've misplaced your faith in the wrong system...
all you want about what kind of government America was established as, but what we are today is a far cry from what our founders intended. We are a democracy. Democracy is a system of government where the political sovereignty is retained directly by the people or through a system of elected representatives. A republic is a form of government that is not led by a hierarchical system, like a king or queen or other monarch, but in which at least some of its people have an impact on the government. I suppose the U.S. could fall into this category as well. But to say we are not a democracy, but a republic, is a common myth but it is false.
The majority rule cocept is undermined by by the people's right to petition the government, including special interests such as the AMA, NRA and so forth, and lobbyists. It was designed this way intentionally because early on (forgive me I do not recall the exact time period, but it was fairly early in our history), as our government was still sorting itself out and learning my trial and error, the people in power deemed that majority rule 100% of the time was not fair to those that would never attain a majority, but still had reasonable interests.
OK, thanks for the civics lesson... I'm very much aware of what a Republic is and what a Democracy is, so let me try this again, since you didn't read it right the first time. I didn't theorize that we were founded as a Republic. I factualized the point that we were founded as a Constitutional Republic. I don't normally make it a habit of citing Wikipedia, but since I don't have a U.S. History textbook by my side, I'll go ahead and do it for your benefit, just as you did for me.
A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic
Now, in fairness, our government has certainly devolved away from the principles of being a Constitutional Republic, but our foundation is not as a Democracy. Given the history of failed democracies around the world prior to the founding of our nation, our founding fathers set forth to avoid that type of rule -- and rightfully so, because look at where even your own shining examples about the misunderstanding of our Constitutional principles has gotten us today...
Now, place your right hand over your heart and repeat after me... "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Or, if you're atheist, I have no problem supporting a pledge for you too - here's your pre-1954 pledge... "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
I look forward to your next unfounded Down arrow. ;-)
I think a blanket statement about most white people not caring about Jim Crow is not entirely accurate. What was the climate at the time, and even if they didn't care, did they realize it was morally right to work on eliminating things like Jim Crow? Also a Democracy is not just about majority rule, which is partly why electorates are so misunderstood.
But on the surface I see what you're saying. It's hard to have faith in the system these days.
I heartily recommend the book The Sovereign Individual by James Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg. The authors posited (ten years ago!) that exactly what we see all around us, was going to happen as an inevitable result of the information revolution.
Think about it: your statements are very true about things not being today as they were in the time of the framers. We must adapt to the times, indubitably; and so must political regimes, nation-states, and other human institutions or they will face the same fate as the dinosaurs.
That tar-pit struggle of redistributionist bureaucracies and elite fiefdoms against the reality of individual knowledge is what we are witnessing just now. It is what we are discussing here, at so many levels. All of us are (to one extent or another) trying to regain our footing on massively shifting tectonic plates.
This is a GOOD thing, Mike.
Maybe I'm in the minority here (being a Texan) and maybe we just have it a whole lot better than the rest of you folks. But I can say with real certainty that my family is far more blessed, in every material way (and even in spiritual ways) than my forefathers were 50 years ago, or 150 years ago, or 250 years ago. I hear all the pissing and squealing and fussing to knock your damned hat in the creek, about the horrible way things are with "the American people". But in my neighborhood, there is peace and prosperity that my grandparents and their grandparents only dreamed about.
I no longer see through the foggy lens or by the point of the bloody spear of popes of Rome...or of John Calvin's bloodthirsty followers for that matter. I have more liberty to follow Christ in real life, without the plastic-banana prepared sermons, 'Sunday school' lessons, and church committees that my grandparents thought were so Biblical (they were demonstrably NOT).
I have access to the finest healthcare on earth, at a very fair price (thank God, my family is very healthy), and I enjoy creature comforts that the kings of the earth would have died for (or killed for, at any rate).
I don't vote anymore, but I don't feel the least bit "unrepresented" because in my entire lifetime, elected officials had never respected the Law of the Land or represented my interests anyway. Big deal: since leaving the "fair share" line of the Taxpayers a decade ago, I don't pay for their criminal enterprises; I don't underwrite their preposterous regulations or porkbarrel projects, so why should I lose sleep over "pork and overregulation"? I don't.
In short, Mike, my family lives far better, in greater liberty, with greater ease and enjoyment, with a clearer understanding of Christ and our spiritual place in the universe, than our forefathers ever had. I live in one of the most amazing, robust, beautiful republics on earth- Texas.
Watching the slow, painful, messy death of a dinosaur is not enjoyable, I must admit. It perplexes me no end, especially to see otherwise bright people continue in foolish, pointless life pursuits while thinking them to be the very essence of human life and liberty! They are struggling against the death of "the system", Mike. They have faith in "the system", and have forgotten the timeless vivacity of the underlying principles that gave birth to that system...and that will live long after that system is replaced by another.
The future belongs to the brave, yes; and to the wise. And Christ said to the meek (but did not imply they should be stupid). I have no faith at all in "the system", so I am happy as a clam in mud, living in liberty and with no plans at all to ever pay the IRS al Qaeda again... or to ever set foot in a voting booth again (but definitely to take part in public trial and indictments of elected officials if they violate laws!)... or to ever "go to church" to hear some carnival barker regurgitate his prepared "sermon" and then listen to three prepared choir-songs.
That system failed, and was a failure from the start. Those three massive dinosaurs -- like the government schools -- are all falling at the same time, in one cacaphonous din, and for one chaotic generation. Praise God for such 'evolution'! :)