76 Replies to “All That Is Necessary For The Triumph Of Evil”

  1. ET; in your description of the US Republic, it may be more clear to mention that the Constitution is Supreme. This theme dominates any Second Amendment debate.
    This is supposed to be true in Canada as well. We are a Constitutional Monarchy but in the areas of the Rights of Citizens and the Provinces the Constitution gets short shift. Why?

  2. What no one will seize Fat Mikes assets? Well can you blame them? With all that fat Mikey hasn’t seen his assets for decades let alone have them seized.
    Oh you were referring to his money! My bad.

  3. Kevin – you don’t go to Wiki for answers to serious theoretical questions! All you’ll get is ignorant opinions, such as you yourself expressed. And that Wiki answer is nonsense, absolute ignorant rubbish.
    Do you realize – and you would if you THOUGHT about it – that the Wiki definition of ‘democracy’ is actually a totalitarian collectivist regime? Their definition actually fits a communist state far more accurately. Think about it.
    The US constitution is focused on individual freedom and equality, and its Bill of Rights or First Ten amendments, guarantees individual freedom and rights.
    BUT, the Constitution also clearly outlines how decision-making is to be carried out, by a democratic vote, and it outlines the numbers of votes required, and so on. So, the US is BOTH a republic AND a democracy, for majority vote in its Congress wins the decision. Again, it’s a majority vote – that’s the democratic process.
    I suggest that you take a look at Aristotle’s definitions of both terms. You could also read Popper’s The open society and its enemies, where he ‘gently’ mocks the ‘naive understanding of democracy as that majority mob rule’ and points out is real meaning as the ‘institutional control of the rulers by the ruled’.
    Again, a republic is a structure of political authority that sets up the political authority as non-hereditary. That’s its basic definition. In order to function in this non-hereditary mode, its leadership must be, obviously, elected. Or sent by Zeus in a flash of lighting. When you get the leadership as elected, then, you must set up the notion of ‘who is the electorate’..and so on.
    A democracy, again – and against that abysmally stupid Wiki, is NOT a state structure. It’s a PROCESS of coming to a decision. Please understand the difference between a Structure and a Process.
    If you come to a decision by a majority vote..that’s a democratic process (as against an authoritarian, no dissent decision). The next question comes..who are the SET of people who make this decision? Is it the elected representatives? And are they bound by a constitution?
    There is NO society – I repeat – NO society – that operates by ‘mob rule’..i.e., where just the majority make the decisions. There is ALWAYS some form of restraint on decision-making, whether it be a constitution or in very small, pre-industrial societies..the force of tradition.
    Please – clear up your understanding, and when you read definitions..think about them and whether they really, have any validity.
    Gunny99 – the US Constitution is very detailed and clear. Our Canadian Constitution, if you’ve ever read it – and I suggest you do – is shocking in its inattention to governance. Essentially, our Constitution simply sets up the governance, the Senate, the House, the Governor-General..and spends most of its time on the Senate and GG- but it actually says very little, almost nothing, about HOW these systems operate, and their limitations etc. And almost nothing about citizens and their rights and the provinces. Read it – it will shock you.
    The Trudeau Charter, in my view, was primarily a document to set up bilingualism..and most of the Charter focuses on this. The rights of citizens are defined in a contradictory way – both as ‘fundamental’ and yet, beholden to disappear if multicultural agendas appear..for these multicultural agendas take precedence to any individual rights.

  4. It is interesting how definitions can be so pervasive and wrong.
    There is Michael Moore with his ignorant statement about ‘capitalism’ and ‘democracy’. Moore ignores that the first is a definition of an economic system, while the second is a definition of ‘how to come to a decision’. After all, the decisions in a corporation can be made by the single boss, or, by a team of collaborators who vote ‘democratically’ where the majority vote wins.
    Democracy is a process of decision-making where the governors VOTE, with the majority winning..versus governance-by-decree of an autocrat.
    And, there’s Wiki (and Kevin) who muddle up a republic (which is a structure of governance) with democracy, which is a process of decision-making.
    John Adams, one of the Founding Fathers, was very wary of having a society run only by a process, and I point out, that no such society exists for all groups have rules and traditions.
    Adams wrote in his important short work ‘Thoughts on Government’- which certainly influenced the Constitutional Congress, that: “the very definition of a republic is “an empire of laws, and not of men.”
    And this means that there cannot be a monarch. The next step, is to delegate decision-making responsibility, for the entire population cannot vote on each decision. This has to be done carefully, to ‘mimic’ the nature of the population.
    Then, Adams rejects ONE assembly; he wants several, and so, the US has the Executive, and the two Legislatures, and the Judiciary. BUT, the process of decision-making in these bodies, is always by democratic vote. Not by decree.

  5. Seeing as we are talking about the United states what the founding fathers had to say at the time should show the contempt they had for a democracy.
    John Quincy Adams – “The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.”
    James Madison – “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.”
    John Adams – “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
    Clearly they saw a distintion before deciding on a republic.
    http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/larson1-5-05.html

  6. “Clearly they saw a distinction before deciding on a republic”.
    Kevin, very true! You would enjoy David McCullough’s “JOHN ADAMS” on that very subject.
    “HOW DEMOCRACIES PERISH” by Jean-Francois Revel would be another read that would interest you, I believe.
    Cheers.

  7. kevin – try reading some quotes from Jefferson on democracy before coming to your invalid conclusion. And read some more of Adams.
    Adams was talking about the PROCESS of coming to decision, and he was worried that the PROCESS, which HAD to be democratic, i.e., by majority vote, had to be embedded in a STRUCTURE that inserted constraints to such a vote. His constraints were – if you’d read his ‘Thoughts on Government’ – was one which had SEVERAL decision-making levels, not one. The Executive, two Legislatures, and a separate judiciary.
    ALL these levels would use the PROCESS of democracy, which is a majority vote, but the constraints on such decisions, which could be by whim and emotion rather than reason, would derive from the number of levels of government by which these decisions had to be reviewed.
    As Adams wrote, “the people’s rights and liberties, and the democratical mixture in a constitution ,can never be preservied without a strong executive’….and by this he meant that the executive can’t be left ‘in the hands of an aristocratical or democratical assembly’.. (In his ‘A Defence of the Constitutions of Governments of the USA). Please refer to his use of ‘democratical mixture’..by which he refers to the PROCESS of decision making..and his insistence that this PROCESS be embedded in multiple and yet separate levels, to prevent either individual (aristocratic) or mob (democratic) decision-making from taking over.
    Think about this. There is NO SUCH THING as a society whose decision-making processes are always and only by majority decision. Think. That would mean that whatever whim-of-the-day would predominate. No rules, no laws, no traditional normative habits. Just the daily whim. This would be a totally unstable and unworkable situation.`
    There is no society, ever, that has governed itself this way – and that includes the most ‘primitive’ hunters and gatherers. ALL of them have the daily decision-making process embedded in some form of stability-inducing infrastructure.
    What Adams was talking about was his insistence that the democratic process of decision-making MUST be operative within a structure of stability-inducing laws. AND, that, to further reduce the effect of daily emotional agendas, that this structure be divided into three separate parts.
    As Adams wrote to Jefferson: “You are afraid of the one; I, the few. We agree perfectly that the many should have full, fair and perfect representation [in the House'”
    And as Jefferson wrote/said, in his Inaugural Address: “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression”.
    That is, the decision-making process is the ‘will of the majority IN THAT Legislature..within the RULE OF LAW.
    You ignore HOW a Republic makes its decision. How? By democratic vote not by autocratic decree of, for example, the Leader of the Senate. Or the leader of the House. By democratic vote of the majority.
    The US is both a republic and a democracy. Please understand the differences and how both structure and process function together.

  8. If government made center of compete with private group it become socialist when you go to next time export show government steal your information
    illegal competition, when you allow private to be boss you around they abuse their power hire lawyer to steal all small company information this is bad capitalism
    all old conspiracy and using all torts to breach contract to only give big boss more profit by put small company with small excuse out using court in past an present to support big company for benefit of them made more faster profit and give government tax but now this is not any more, now we have compete with socialism and capitalism or make it co-op in certain area this is also new competition, at the end we need to have human right to help all public interest without conflict of interest of white house and big rich people who used race and discrimination to belittle and sell their own good also is unfair completion can be balance life and made it happy again.
    why people hate Obama is because he go so fast to benefit government and some time all cut to rich also make them scared to defend him by talk back and find small change to made him do not go so fast to don’t lose what they have
    because capitalism and Obama are in competition with each other but public can be benefit to choose who is better.
    the only problems here that Bush came using republican to take under conspiracy to help public take under table so much money to his pocket and bankrupt USA and world and now if Democrat also come to bankrupt public using all only talk nice but not deliver then again this is another trick to public so far Republican are lost this game and if Democrat also lost then USA need like Canada new democrat NDP to help Canada because in history Liberal fail us to enter us to Sep 11 and Afghanistan and now conservative did more add to made inside hate among Muslim and No Muslim in Canada then we may need in future NDP to help us or any new party to help us all
    now Obama tried to reform the education that is reason Republican are made fun of him
    Obama talk with children:

  9. Can someone point out to this little S*** his barefaced hypocrisy and downright lying? He profits immensely through capitalism

  10. new,
    Try to write short complete sentences. Start them with a capital letter, and end them with a period. This is standard English style, and it will help your readability. I have a lot of patience, but I can’t read the above post. It isn’t English. You may know what you mean, nobody else does, I suspect.

  11. Now come on you guys, ease up on Michael Moore.
    You’re obviously having a deleterious effect on his career!:
    “Sep 07, 2009 04:30 AM
    Associated Press
    After much success at Cannes, Moore premiered the movie yesterday in his first appearance at the Venice Film Festival. It was warmly received at a press showing Saturday evening and won positive reviews. Variety called it one of Moore’s “best pics.””

  13. You’re afraid of socialism but not facism???? Do you people know the difference?? I didn’t think so.

  14. ET,
    My research says: ‘There is a fundimental difference between a Democracy and a Republic. While the government, in both cases is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules acording to their whims while in a Republic the government rules according to law…law that is framed in a constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.’
    You say “the process of democracy”…does this process always lead to democratic government (not the process but the result)?
    In my view, there is more “Individual Freedom” in a Democracy vs a Republic…right or wrong? (question is asked for educational purposes).
    Cheers

  16. Good evening Black Mamba,
    Something I Googled up..these “succinct definitions” were “produced by the US Army in 1928” and were “quietly withdrawn soon after”. (albatrus.org)
    The 2 questions are mine….building a template to see how the work of the “Founding Fathers” has held up to the passage of time and manipulation….your thoughts are welcome!

  17. Democracy is merely a means of choosing a government. The problem is that the left has an anti-concept called “democratization”, which means bringing things under some form of group vote that should not be there. A classic example is the Wheat Board. Farmers’ produce should be their own to sell or otherwise dispose of. There should no more be a vote on how to dispose of all their grain than on whether to eat Corn Flakes or Rice Krispies for breakfast. It’s an individual decision, one that the CWB violates.
    I must take issue with one poster who commented on “the evil and childish ideas of communism / collectivism / tribalism / totalitarianism / secularism / disarmamentism”. The first four certainly, and the last one in the current context, but “secularism” doesn’t belong in this list. Religion, like collectivism, is a form of mysticism based on faith rather than reason. Socialism substitutes “society” for “God” and demands subservience. They’re two sides of the same coin. Many socialists are atheists, but opposing it doesn’t require religious belief.
    As for disarmament, it’s true that while we have socialist governments anywhere, we must be armed in case they choose to export their violence here. But in the event that the fundamental moral principle of a civilized society — no person has the right to initiate the use of force on any other person — is accepted and enforced worldwide, we won’t have any socialist governments left and there will be no need for militaries.
    Finally, here’s a fatuous comment: “You’re afraid of socialism but not facism???? Do you people know the difference?? I didn’t think so.”
    Yeah, we do know the difference: nothing.
    P. S. It’s spelled “fascism”. You went to public school, right?

  18. Evening Garry – My thoughts? albatrus.org seems to be a very idiosyncratic religious website. ET knows what she’s talking about.

  20. nv53:
    My Christian understanding is one of personal liberation, starting with the concept of God-given free will and going on to use that free will to make positive and productive choices.
    For that gift, I am truly grateful.
    I honestly feel sorry for you if somebody lied to you and left you with the impression that you are subservient to any other human being.
    The Central Committee is nowhere near the top of my list, since I am quite capable of spending my own money and raising my own children.
    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is to give up your free will to any other human being.

  21. One of the few cases where the majority vote decision making process comes into play would be a plebiscite, but that is generally limited to specific measures etc.

  22. Garry – there is no such thing as a society whose decisions are made by ‘whims’. The outline to which you refer is incorrect.
    And there is no such things as a ‘democracy’ vs a ‘republic. A republic is a structure of govt, with no hereditary leaders; democracy is a process of coming to decisions.
    Just think a bit. Could a population really function where all decisions about the collective are made by whim? Of course not. A society operates within a rubric of stability, which enables continuity, predictive surety and gives the people the ability to live into the future.
    So, a people, even without an ‘elected Congress’ and just a Set of Elders, will develop ‘normative codes of behaviour’ that everyone is expected to follow.
    These normative codes can include any and everything from how much grain to put aside for next year’s harvest, to normative behaviour to other people, to marriage rules, to how to deal with illness and so on.
    NOTHING about these issues can be decided by ‘whim’.
    In larger populations, even without a written code of law, there will be rules and regulations about normative behaviour. These are the ‘cultural norms’.
    In yet larger populations, the rules will be written in laws and a constitution.
    Democracy is NOT a structure of political organization, but a particular PROCESS of coming to a decision. This PROCESS is to take the majority vote of a SET of people. That’s all it means.
    Democracy is NOT ‘merely a means of choosing a government’. It is a means of making decisions, and the choice of government members can be one such decision.

  23. ET,
    Thanks for the informed and detailed response. My time is distracted tonight but I will reply more fully tomorrow.
    As Black Mamba pointed out, the source is questionable but chosen for it’s early concept of the difference (defined by the US Army in 1928 and withdrawn shorlty thereafter). Decisions made by “whims” aren’t realistic, as you point out. My concern lies with the ‘whimsical’ politicians that Canada’s voters continue to leave us with.
    The democratic process doesn’t define a country’s governance, as you point out. My concern is how easily this process can be hijacked. I feel we see this in Canada and have since, at least, the PET days.
    Your response to Gunney99 (Sept 7 @ 4:13pm) re: our “Constitution” and the “Trudeau Charter” is scary (not your response…the lacking in the constitution and what pet’s charter really does). I’ve felt this for many years. And then, of course, is ‘our’ “Charter of Rights”…what hogwash!!
    I left 2 questions, in my post of Sept 7 @ 11:06PM…I look forward to further commentary.
    And thanks again.

  24. You like all the benefits socialism brings so why don’t you practice what you preach about. Next you get sick or need surgery go to the Mayo clinic and pay for it yourself. Take out private insurance and go to the states to get medical care. You’re phonier than a 3 dollar bill. You talk like big shots but I know you’re not. I think you just like to hear yourselves talk. You think it makes you better than everyone else. It’s like born agains. They think they are so special that a god of some sort talks to them in tongues. Keep talkin I’m a great BSer myself and like a good story.

  25. Garry – you ask, ‘does the process of democracy’ always lead to ‘democratic government’. I’d have to say – No.
    After all, you could have a process of electing a leader which is democratic, in that the majority vote wins, BUT, the ‘set’ of people who are allowed to vote might be restricted to, eg, only landowners, or, only members of a certain family or tribe. And, the nominee might be restricted only to members of a certain tribe.
    And, the winner might not have a constitution that restricts him; he might have been, theoretically, democratically elected but that doesn’t mean that he’ll govern in a democratic manner.
    He might govern in an autocratic manner ..cf Chavez..and even Obama, who attempts to ignore Congress by insisting they pass bills based only on trust in obama..and not read and debate the bill.
    And, the democratic vote might be really a ‘degenerate vote’ in that the people who vote might be misinformed, manipulated, bribed and so on.
    So, now, a democratic process does necessarily lead to a ‘democracy’ so to speak. And that’s why so many have been cautious about it. Democracy, on its own, is not enough to enable a truly free and responsible society.

  26. Good morning ET,
    Eventhough, unlike Black Mamba, I don’t have insomnia (or so she claims !!) my recent available hours have been limited.
    I agree with your answer.
    I’m about to reread David McCullough’s “JOHN ADAMS” (you may have heard of it?)…it’s been over 5 years and not forefront in the memory nodes but I remember both quite enjoying it and that process of defining the New England Colony’s extraction, from British control was not all that harmonious.
    Did the “Founding Fathers” choose a Republic vs a Democracy (in your opinion) with any sound reasoning as to the pitfalls of the democratic process or were they just against the British process of government and anti-British to boot?
    Cheers.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation