A blog on objective thought in today's irrational, subjective world tackling some of the hardest questions of existence using reason and logic.
Not to Pick, but...
Published on November 2, 2004 By John Galt In Politics
Ok, so Draginol just posted an article on How to make a Kerry voter into a Bush voter.

One of the things that has stuck with me throughout my readings of Draginol, that I just find so very very wrong, is his assumption that the will of the people is what democracy is all about. (“We're a democracy. The will of the people should be paramount.”) I agree with almost everything else he says. However, democracy is NOT about the will of the people. It is about the people electing representatives because they believe that those people will act in an honourable way that will ultimately further their district and the country as a whole and that can only be accomplished through freedom. It is not about popularity and it is not about the majority getting to dictate to the few or the one. This is the fundamental principle that both Bush and Kerry don’t understand as don’t most politicians. They, and most people in the free world have forgotten the true meaning of democracy as envisioned by the Greeks and later by the great American founding fathers who had a very specific and fantastic vision for the United States.

In fact, that is why the US has a constitution in the first place. It was an attempt by very educated men, to communicate what they only knew instinctually: The individual is the only value that matters. Groups are irrelevant, the majority means nothing. It is the individual human spirit of every free person to become all that they can be, to achieve “the American dream” that matters. The constitution was founded based on the issues of the day to ensure freedom for those men at that time. The reason is that because the founding fathers were instinctual Aristolians (objectivists by today’s terminology) they did not have the educated awareness of what they knew to be true to create a generic definition that would fit all cases. So instead they used specific examples (the right to bare arms etc.) to exemplify their understanding with the firm conviction that the men and women that followed them would understand this fundamental truth as well as they did if not better. (In fact I’m sure they assumed that the people that followed them would be more knowledgeable. They couldn’t have fathomed that everything that was learned during the renaissance and the American Revolution would be forgotten as it largely has today.) If this wasn't why the constitution of the United States was written, and democracy was supposed to mean "the will of the people" then there would be no need for a constitution because whatever the majority decided would be the RIGHT choice. We all know that that isn't the case because we fought against the communists for this very reason.

It is with this fundamental understanding of the individual that all law in the free world was once based upon. That there is no crime unless you harm or are acting TO harm another DIRECTLY. This is what the sum of the constitution of the United States of America means. This is the fundamental truth of all law, from St. Thomas Aquinas on down. Any law that abridges any act that does not harm another, is an unjust law. Further, you can never force a person to sacrifice themselves for another no matter the circumstances and no matter the reason, no matter how small the sacrifice must be. This is called slavery. Abraham Lincoln understood this concept as did many others later. This is the check and balance built into the US system and most other “free” nations. The supreme court has the power to strike down ANY law that violates these fundamental truths (freedoms). That is what they did in the case of Roe v. Wade. They did not make new law, they struck down unconstitutional law that required a woman to voluntarily enslave herself for the life of an unborn child. Similarly the Supreme Court of Canada did the same when they struck down the anti-same-sex marriage law. As they just did with the CRTC (FCC of Canada) law preventing US Satellite companies from selling their services to Canadians. This isn’t new law, this is the exercising of the check and balance system to force the government to either make a law that does not infringe on the fundamental principles of freedom, or to not make a law at all because it is impossible to do so without requiring slavery to another (unborn fetus or otherwise) or by infringing on my right to swing my arm so long as I don’t hit someone in the process. That the government of the US (and later Canada) did not choose to make a new law against abortion tells you something. Either they knew that they wouldn’t get elected if they did, thus showing the public awareness of freedom dispite their theological or socialistic bents, or that they couldn’t write a law that would pass the constitutional challenge, and thus decided to leave it the hell alone (good idea). The system worked EXACTLY as it should. Now if only other laws would be struck down on this same principle we would be getting somewhere (Patriot Act).

Someday soon, all of these highly partisan people of the US that are very, very vehement about the Right being right or the Left being right, will come to realize that both are wrong. Both seek to enslave you, just in different ways. Both seek to take away your rights “for the greater good”. The only difference is shades of grey.

Each of you know this fundamental truth instinctually. It’s why you cry out for real leaders to step up and lead this country. It’s why you’re so disillusioned and why, with the exception of this election because of Iraq, voter turn out has been dropping for more than 40 years. Why vote when you get to choose a socialist slave master or a religious one?

I for one would vote for anyone that stood up and pledged to do what they believed was in the best interest of individuals. Not a minority group, not a lobby group, but what will ensure that I get to continue to be an individual and go my own way. Because that is the first step of the American dream. I have to be able to walk my own path without fear of persecution before I can ever hope to achieve my dreams. Regan understood that, and that’s why he deserves to take his place beside Lincoln, Washington and others.

When you go to the polls think carefully on this concept, and realize that a vote for Bush or Kerry is just as surely a vote for slavery and the destruction of freedom as the other. And then write in a name if you’re able. That name is John Galt. Not for me, but for the character that I admire and get my nick from: John Galt of Atlas Shrugged. Vote for the individual and freedom that your great, great, great... grandfathers fought and died for (or someone else’s did and you now reap the benefits of) and truly understood and we have forgotten with some ill-conceived notion that democracy is the “will of the people” otherwise known as Majority Rule, otherwise known as Communism hidden behind a thin veil of capitalism tolerated only because it permits the socialists to exist and continue an evil concept that was proven as such almost 100 years ago when Stalin killed 50+ million people in the name of Majority Rule, the GREATER GOOD.

The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance (Churchill). Time to realize the lies that you’ve been sold and stand up for what freedom and democracy really are. “For and By The People” is very specific. For the people, not for the majority, for each and every individual. By The People, made up of anyone that wishes to run and convey their vision and integrity to others and be elected to do the job of ensuring freedom for all instead of power being horded in the hands of a few men who inherited their power instead of earned it.

On November 2nd vote for freedom, vote for the individual, vote for the true meaning of democracy. It is the only course of action that will save the United States of America from itself.

Comments
on Nov 02, 2004
While I agree with your major point, a democracy is by definition a form of government where the will of the majority of the voters, be it 98 vs. 2 or 51 vs. 49, becomes the supreme law of the land. That is why I am thankful that the United States is not actually a democracy, but a democratic republic.

As for not voting for either of the major parties, the sad reality is that we have to, because one of the two is going to win, and so voting for anyone else is synonymous with staying home and sleeping through the election. I don't think either Bush or Kerry are ideal choices, but I have to go with what I think is a lesser evil, because one of those two evils is going to win.
on Nov 02, 2004
We... are not... a democracy...

Why can't people understand this?
on Nov 02, 2004
We're a Democracy

By: John Galt
Posted: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 on Rational Thought in an Irrational World
Message Board: Politics
Ok, so Draginol just posted an article on How to make a Kerry voter into a Bush voter.

One of the things that has stuck with me throughout my readings of Draginol, that I just find so very very wrong, is his assumption that the will of the people is what democracy is all about. (“We're a democracy. The will of the people should be paramount.”


We are NOT a democracy! We are a REPUBLIC! We have a democratic form of government.
on Nov 02, 2004
John, good article. I too have written on the subject of democracy and our form of government being a democratic republic in my blog. I also have to agree with Philomedy when they say "...voting for either of the major parties, the sad reality is that we have to, because one of the two is going to win..." Third party candidacies just aren't viable at this stage of the game and even when a third party candidate DOES get traction, one of the major parties just aborbs their core issues as their own to marginalize them. However, the good thing about this is that the major party is then forced to LISTEN and RESPOND to that minority or risk loosing to the other majority party.
on Nov 02, 2004
I think the fundamental problem here is that US politics is only a two party issue. That makes everything black or white. It makes all issues republican or democrat. It makes everyone with you or against you. There is no room for other opinions. You can't critise Bush without people assuming you supprot Kerry and you can't critise Kerry without people assuming you supprot Bush. There's no problem with a majority determining the government, the problem lies with the majority feeling that the minority is against them and vice versa. This really does need to change before American becomes the land of the disenfranchised, with half the population constantly feeling that they have no say in government.

I would love to see a two stage election process where the top two candidates from the first stage go through to a run off. This would encourage people to vote for who they really want in the first round. It may even encourage the two major political parties to field more than one option for the first round. You may have a primary candidate but enough supprot in a seperate part of the country places a secondary candidate on the ballot. This would make US politics more about the individual, allowing peopel to vote for someone who really does represent them. A second round one week later would then probably revert to aprty lines, but the candidates would be aware of how people really felt and which issues they need to focus on.

Paul.
on Nov 02, 2004

You totally misunderstood my point.

I realize we're a representative republic.  My point is that I prefer that our laws be made by elected representatives and not by appointed judges. Judges should interpret the law, not make it.

on Nov 02, 2004
I realize we're a representative republic. My point is that I prefer that our laws be made by elected representatives and not by appointed judges. Judges should interpret the law, not make it.


For once I have to agree.
on Nov 02, 2004
Very nice article, i dont think any partison person will be willing to even try and see your point but thats what partisons do, cling to thier ideals no matter what evidence is thrown in there face; just like theologans.
on Nov 02, 2004
Three things here (thanks for the words of confidence people!)

1. Yes, I know that you're a republic (I'm from Canada) but the differences are relatively minor. Prime Minister from winning party with most seats versus separately elected, Senate nominated versus elected. Both don't really change much other than Canada ends up with a little bit more of a dictatorship for 4 years than you do. The major difference beyond what I have stated here is that a democracy in it's truest form has a King or Queen has the head of state. Thus Canada, the UK and Australia are (sort of, by definition) democracies. Republics' heads of states are their President. Everything else is decided upon by the constitution has nothing to do with the definition. (First Year Political Science University of Toronto) Thus when I use the word democracy I'm bastardising much like Bush and Kerry bastardising the word, but it's there for clarity.

2. "You totally misunderstood my point.

I realize we're a representative republic. My point is that I prefer that our laws be made by elected representatives and not by appointed judges. Judges should interpret the law, not make it."

Actually I didn't misunderstand your point. The supreme court of both Canada and the US has NEVER, EVER made law. They have only struck down laws made in contradiction to the constitution (charter of rights and freedoms in Canada). Find me one instance where the supreme court laid out a law in any form. they have never done it (they clarify things all of the time, but that's laws that were written badly being interpreted. The elected government is free to clarify their badly written law if they don't like the clarification given by the court). Not in Roe V. Wade and not in any other case. They simply ruled that abortion is unconstitutional and thus threw out the law passed by the government that didn't have the right to pass the law in the first place. Eventually they will do the same with gay marriage because preventing it is also unconstitutional regardless of what you think or feel on the subject. This isn't making new law. The decision of Roe V. Wade outlined exactly what the supreme court WOULD allow in a law if there was to be one and exactly what they wouldn't. Is this new law? No, this is telling the law makers do it right, or we'll strike down the next one too for the same reason, so don't waste our time. Good message to send!

In Canada the supreme court right now is actually vetting our perspective gay marriage law for constitutionality. This is an excellent way to work in the case of something like this, because it ensures that the law is just and ensures the freedom for all BEFORE it's passed instead of laws like the DMCA that only will get struck down when millions (billions?) is spent to overcome the lobbiests that got it past in the first place. (very badly written law, and the enduce act is even worse!)

This is the checks and balances system at it's finest. I wish people would stop (and there are lots here in Canada claiming the same thing when the gay marriage law was struck down) accusing the courts of making law, when all they are doing is throwing out unjust law. That's my point and the key issue I have with what you said Draginol. The elected representitives are the only ones that can make law. The supreme court is the defender of the constitution against that elected government and thus can throw out laws made by the elected representitives that violate the constitution, and that is the only power they have ever exercised because it is the only power that they have other than interpreting the laws as passed for consistancy which I think is also a good thing... woudln't want a murderer going free once and the same crime ending up on the electric chair now would we?

3. If you only vote for the two parties that have a chance of winning there will never be a third party that does have a chance to win. Vote libertarian. If everyone that thought that the other candidates didn't have a chance and voted for the two majors, voted according to their conscience instead of voting strategically, then this would be a very different election (i.e. none of the Candidates would most likely have enough electoral collage votes (now that has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever seen btw, get to the popular vote damnit!) to win, and thus it would send a very strong message to the shysters in the primary parties. Maybe then, they wouldn't feel entitled to enslave you for whatever scheme they have planned to scam people out of their votes simply because their gready and the government is going to give them something for nothing.
on Nov 03, 2004
Good response John.

I totally agree with your second point (and the focus of your article here). Majority rule always degrades into mob rule when that majority decides to unfairly impose it's will on the minority. There are many areas where it should be unacceptable for the mob to impose it's will due to protections that an individual is given. Most people accept that freedom of speach or freedom of religion are two of these protections, but time and time again we see those freedoms being eroded. Just look at the backlash against gay marraige at the moment, or the deep rooted anger at those who oppose the war or suggest the war on terrorism is being fought wrong. The mob is beginning to define itself as American with anyone in disagreement being anti-american. This is a very dangerous situation. How much longer before the basic protection of the constitution gets further eroded and only those who support the majority point can speak?

Paul.
on Nov 03, 2004
Solitair:

One comment:

Just because the Constitution doesn't mention a freedom doesn't mean you're not entitled to it. In fact by defintion of all law by every defition of law ever given, you're entitled to absoultely everything that doesn't PHYSICALLY harm another.

Case in point: You're free from theft. Whether it be government (big gang) sanctioned at the barrel of the mitliary/police's gun or a gang on the streets of New York. The means that any service provided that you did not requested and did not ask for personally you don't have to pay for and it's theft if someone makes you pay for it. (deductive billing is used most by the government, except in their case there is no opt-out clause)

If you've read my peice of "the greater good" you'll notice that I routinely refer to the greater good not existing. That's because there is no way to do something for the whole, that requires sacrifice of the individual because the end result is that the greater good isn't served because those that your initiative requires to work to produce it, will either die or stop producing to protect themselves from looting. And while morally you may assert that the person should do their part, legally and morally, they are not REQUIRED to do their part and any coersion in any way is slavery and/or theft. Thus all of those government programs? They're all by defintion immoral. The only moral functions of a government are military and police. It's only possible purpose is to ensure an environment where a person can succeed on their own merit and it is only those two services that everyone asks for and thus should pay to receive. (if you don't ask for protection from outside threats and criminals, well you're on your own, have fun

In case you have any question of if this policy works, look to the birth of the US, or more recently look to the Regan administration who continually removed itself from your lives and let you succeed on your own. End result? Prosperity for everyone that chose to work hard and earn their own living. And everyone else that chooses to sit on their ass and do nothing? Who cares? Sooner or later they will do something and get off their asses and stop leaching from the hard working individuals, or they'll die.
on Nov 07, 2004
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Theodore Roosevelt, 1912

Also -- We ...are not... a republic... We (the USA)...are...a...FEDERAL REPUBLIC.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republic:

Federal republic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A federal republic is a republic constituting of a union of constitutionally recognised self-governing sub-units variously called states (e.g. United States, Mexico), provinces (Argentina, South Africa), Bundesländer (Germany, Austria), or cantons (Switzerland). Each state or district retains sovereignty which is limited by way of its subordination to a central republican authority.

In strict constitutional terms, the states within a federal republic are not independent but inferior to the federal state, which is regarded as the national unit. In contrast, confederations contain states that are to varying degrees, independent but which are part of a shared limited larger political entity or which have effective parity of powers and authority with the shared larger political entity. Similarly, states with devolved governmental sub-units are not described as federations because their sub-units have no constitutional right to exist but are created by, and potentially abolishable by, the national parliament.

Examples include Brazil, Germany, Mexico, Russia, and the United States of America. A republic is not a requirement for a federal form — Canada and Australia are federations but not republics.

HaHaHa!!!
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!