send Obumbles this info, he may be behind a little on this!!!!
Santelli seems to get more manic every time I see him; never dull, always has a point, even if it takes him a while to get to it.
First time I have heard Mr.Santelli. His point seems to be,we are f&*ked,whether a republic or democracy.So which is the lesser of three evils?
Republic?
Democracy?
Benevolent(?)Dictator?
I am so confuzzed.
Yes, the big distinction that in the US Republic the sovereignty rests with the individual is something the ‘morally and intellectually superior’ crowd don’t like to play up. Kinda interferes with control of people.
His point that, in a democracy, sovereignty rests within the ‘group’ is interesting. I suppose that’s why leftists are so big on democracy. It’s easy to put people into groups, whether they want to be there or not.
Well while we are educating feather headed big gov’t wonks about basic gov’t models…we might want to school those morons on the advantages and disadvantages of free vs. black markets.
As we speak, Greek markets are going underground and dropping off the grid. Barter and cash is king, deals are done under the table and the people are starving their gov’t with the full intent of killing it.
Rest assured, there are ways to deal with leftist gov’t scum.
I disagree with Santelli’s distinction because he’s not comparing two models of societal organization.
A republic is a particular mode or model of societal organization where authority is vested in the people rather than a hereditary agent. As such, it requires elections or other agreed upon methods to appoint these authorities.
Democracy is not a mode of societal organization but a method of coming to a decision within that society or group. All it means is that a vote is taken and the majority wins. You can use this method of validating a decision in a republic.
The US is both a republic and a democracy. Canada is both a constitutional monarchy, with an elected parliament and a democracy.
Nonsense….$%$, America is neither a democracy or republic, think about it, which political party wants to do away with the fiat monetary system. Until the media can at least acknowledges what is fundamentally wrong, (How can you fix things, that are not even talked about)then you know its all lies.
Democracy is not a mode of societal organization but a method of coming to a decision within that society or group.
Via ‘groups’.
Santelli was right. The majority vote is being used to subvert the sovereignty of the individual.
Big bad Jim – yes, the rise of the black market is a response to an excessive government taxation. Quebec, for example, has a huge black market economy.
But that’s not the point of the discussion, which is about Santelli’s incorrect comparison of a ‘model of societal organization’ with a ‘method of coming to a decision within a group’. The two, a model and a method, obviously refer to two different things and thus can’t be compared.
A republic is a model of social organization and a democracy is how that population arrives at a decision. After all, IF, in a republic, governing power rests with ‘the people’, then those same people must also have a method of coming to decisions.
In a constitutional democratic method, decisions are reached by having those same people taking a vote. The majority wins the decision. The minority continue in opposition. Thus, the debate can, sometimes, continue, for the fact that governance rests with the people means that decisions can be changed over time. But only if the people wish such changes to take place.
ET, “A republic is a model of social organization and a democracy is how that population arrives at a decision”,agreed.
ET, also, “All it means is that a vote is taken and the majority wins. You can use this method of validating a decision in a republic”.
But, as stradivarious says, “The majority vote is being used to subvert the sovereignty of the individual.” I think we are seeing this happen more frequently in the last number of decades as a sort of brainwashed group-think has been nourished by those with an agenda and who have more than the health of democracy in mind.
Ken, the ‘sovereignty’ of the individual extends only to the limits of the individual’s domain. That domain refers only to aspects of life which are considered specifically private as opposed to public.
You are ignoring that our species cannot and does not live as an isolate or private entity but is also a public or social entity. That’s why our species has the capacity for language. That’s why our knowledge is not genetic but learned.
The individual doesn’t have sovereignty over issues that are deemed public. For example, the economy is a public process because it involves collaboration and communication. Roads are a public process for the same reason. Surely no individual has the right to make a decision about an economic transaction just on his own; he must include the others involved. If he doesn’t, it’s called extortion or theft or whatever.
Democracy is a method of arriving at a decision within the community. Most certainly it acknowledges the majority, and so it should. The majority is not always right and that’s why in a democracy the minority continues to operate, within the right of freedom of speech and freedom of association. If this minority manages to persuade others of the validity of their views, then, over time the collective laws can be changed.
A group is always, almost by definition, ‘brain-washed’. At least, the minorities will think so, and this is hardly a novel situation but exists as long as our species has existed. Again, the minorities will have to persuade others of the validity of their views.
What you are referring to, possibly, is the increasing intrusion of a centralist government in the lives of individuals. For example, where government dictates the sixe of the container of sweet soda you may purchase! That has nothing to do with either the republican model or the democratic method but with the mindset of a population that hands over decision making to a centralist government.
The majority of in the democratic part of the US just voted to give to themselves money they voted to take from the rich.
Assuming that the election results actually reflect the will of the people and the numbers were not skewed by rigged voting then the US can be both a Republic and a Democracy. That being said a Democracy and a Republic can be destroyed from within by either ignorant voting (what’s in it for me) or rigged voting. In the last election we saw prime examples of both.
Unfortunately the last USA election strongly indicated that most Americans are happy with their current leadership. Rick’s concerns are falling on empty heads or at a minimum deaf ears.
I often wonder how much of the monetary stimulation is a simple attempt to limit interest rates. Let alone the cost to government if their debt financing cost go up but what impact on personal debt. Even a 1% increase in finance cost would be devastating.
What upsets me about Rick’s missives is the somewhat condesending manner the anchor uses. Laugh it off even if he wants to cry.
The individual doesn’t have sovereignty over issues that are deemed public. For example, the economy is a public process because it involves collaboration and communication. Roads are a public process for the same reason. Surely no individual has the right to make a decision about an economic transaction just on his own; he must include the others involved. If he doesn’t, it’s called extortion or theft or whatever.
A good example of why government needs to be as inefficient as possible. So idiots like ET cannot ‘deem’ what is public and what is private according to their skewed view.
Another of Santelli’s points.
France had a democracy and a republic – where collectivist republicans (proto commies) and collectivist monarchists sat across from each other and a military dictator presided over this parliament of the French Republic.
The Chinese and every latin Marxist Junta have a “Republic”.
The ony thing which makes a republic is a founding doument called a constitution which puts the people in charge of thei government and allows for the legal overthrow of any government which deviates from the document without a mandate from the people. It also needs a population who are constantly vigilant against corrupt government.
Canada would make a lousy Republic because we are too lazy/gutless to remain free independent citizens and relegate our civil duties to government and we are too apathetic to care when government becomes our master.
Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
BTWL The fact Santelli has to “reveal” the simple nature of a republic (where sovereignty rests) to a modern America, is an indication the US is no longer a republic – hasn’t been since the 1913 central banking coup and when Dewy and Bernays created the “educrat”
“The vigilant sleep at their own peril”- JP Jones
Can someone explain to me the democrat strategy here? Currently their big plan is to convince people that tax cuts cause economic disaster and tax increases lead to prosperity. I know we live in a post-reality world but when it becomes evident even to the most retarded person on the street that the tax increases didn’t work what will they do? I can’t believe they can keep blaming it on Republicans and Bush forever. At some point people will realize what’s going on right?
The problem with ET’s shortsightedness is that she does not believe in God as the architect of Creation who set this whole thing in motion. The rule of chance and luck are the M/O of her world view.
Whereas those who wrote the US Consitutution had a very firm belief in a living and active Sovereign, who gave every human being those individual and equal rights. They fully understood that each human was created equal, but not with the same skillset or capacity. There were those who are weak and those who are strong, but they are each possess the same life-force called the human spirit, soul and body.
That is why they chose to set up a Republic, because it stated and affirmed their world view of each man, woman and child as being a sovereign individual, yet dependent on the others in their community to be strong and stay strong.
The beauty and brilliance of that Constitution has been tarnished by those who no longer believe in the supremacy of the Creator, who gave each person their own right to choose the life that they can live.
Those in the Democracy dominated “group think” mentality believe that the collective gives them their voice. The charismatic and power-hungry draw the masses to themselves with ideas that define the people’s value systems and imposes them on the rest. The leader’s greatest fear and challenge is the sovereign individual because they cannot be bought or sold, they can only be mocked, scorned, ridiculed, threatened and when that does not work, eliminated.
Democracies only work when each person has a healthy grasp of their God-given rights and responsibilities; but that then trumps the need for the democracy as it now becomes a Republic.
Democracies are for Atheists, Dualist, Agnostics and all other forms of God-haters.
Republics, the others.
The simplest definitions:
Democracy: anybody in a society can propose the law, everybody votes. It killed Socrates.
Republic: One of our own represent us. In case of Rome, arose from overthrowing monarchy and led to military dictatorship.
Socrates got a jury trial after a preliminary hearing in front of a judge, and was convicted by 280 votes to 220 votes. He was sentenced to death by 360 votes to 140 votes. The prosecution case is not given in the accounts. He was probably convicted of being anti-democratic, which he unquestionably was.
glacierman, sorry, but I don’t think that the definition of a responsible government requires that one believes in god.
It may surprise you, but atheists are, gosh, able to think, and thus, gosh, have morals and ethics.
Again, the definition of Republic is that it is a mode or model of government where authority is vested in non-hereditary or elected agents.
The definition of democracy is that it is NOT a mode or model of government, but a METHOD of coming to a decision. All it states is that in a democracy, the majority vote wins. Then, you must set up rules for ‘who has the right to vote’ etc.
oldfart, I don’t know if Socrates was anti-democratic, but Plato sure was; Plato was a totalitarian. The Taliban have nothing on him. Read Plato’s Republic.
As Aristotle wrote in his Politics, ‘liberty is the first principle of democracy…the numerical majority is supreme’.
xiat, your outline of ‘anybody can vote’ is a decision making method that operates without a governing model. As Popper wrote, in The Open Society, p.123, it is a ‘naive version’ for it effectively acts as a tyranny. It ignores the rule of law and a constitution. It is a degenerate state….and reminds me of Obama’s tactic of ‘ including as many as they can, and making citizens not only of those who are legitimate but even of the illegitimate’.. (Politics: 1319b:5).
And your definition of a Republic as ‘one of our own represents us’ is ambiguous. You could say the same thing about a democratic vote.
The point of a Republic, is that leadership is, being non-hereditary, open to change.
And the point of democracy, which entitles all citizens to have a say in their governance by their vote, is that, as a METHOD of arriving at a decision, it rejects decision-making by one person, or by an aristocracy or by a small set. It invests decision-making power in the people, or, all citizens.
As Popper also outlines (pp 160-161), ‘Democracy cannot be fully characterized as the rule of the majority…In a democracy the rulers; that is to say, the government, can be dismissed by the ruled without bloodshed. Thus if the men in power do not safeguard those institutions which secure to the minority the possibility of working for a peaceful change, then their rule is a tyranny’.
Again, the democratic method, as a means of arriving at decisions, by vote of the people, enables the minority who lose the vote, to argue and convince others of the validity of their opinion.
That is,
ET, nice sidestep.
Once again your logic is lost on morality. The atheist adopts the local flavour of morality to survive, and we have been down that rabbit hole before without you really understanding or ignoring the whole dynamics of morality.
Please re-read and comprehend the deeper meaning of God-give rights and equality to get the foundation of a Republican. He is one who knows who and what he is first and foremost as an individual, then within his community.
Democrats are programed with the group-think first and then try and fit the peg into the hole. The construct in the measure, not the individual.
That is the point Rick Santelli is making.
glacierman, your definition of an atheist’s morality as ‘the local flavour’ is your own opinion and not a valid description of atheism.
Your conclusion that I have no understanding of and ignore the ‘whole dynamics of morality’ is again, your opinion. I leave you to enjoy it.
Again, what you seem to ignore is that the definition of a republic (which is not the same as the Republican Party) defines a governing MODEL where authority is not vested in heredity power but is elected.
This has nothing to do with god-given rights, but a Republic most certainly acknowledges that all its citizens are individuals who are equal and have basic fundamental or natural rights.
The definition of a democracy (which is not the same as the Democratic Party) is that it comes to a decision by a METHOD where the majority vote wins.
Nothing to do with individuals or groups, but merely a method of coming to a decision. Democracy acknowledges that all the members of the group (this can be the citizens, or the members of a particular club or school or dinner party) have the right to vote, and the majority decision wins. That’s all.
Therefore, the US is both a republic and a democracy.
Therefore, the US is both a republic and a democracy.
Not so.
Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626] Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
ET, you are still blinded by your world view that our true identity is not based in a Supreme Creator and loving God. That is the disconnect which is lost throughout all of your posts. You don’t agree which is your free choice, but that is not the view of the Founding Fathers and the writers of the US Constitution. That is the issue which Santelli was making. The foundations of the principles which they understood and lived by are now either lost to the masses or as most have stated through the many posts here on SDA, they are being deconstructed and replaced by socialist group-thinkers who want a secular state, rid of all things referring to God in any way, shape and form.
Inalienable rights are bestowed on the individual and that is the basis for the term Republican. It is not a country club association, which you were referring to above, but by the belief system associated with being a Republican.
Denial will lead to death, and that is exactly what we have witnessed in the last few days. The chickens are coming home to roost.
glacierman. I do understand your perspective but I don’t agree with it; I don’t consider myself ‘blinded’ by my refusal to believe in god.
The US is, itself, secular in that its legislative laws are not within the authority of religion. Their Constitution refers only to their legislative rules and says nothing about any non-legislated authorities nor about any metaphysical agency.
The Declaration of Independence does indeed refer to, first, ‘The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God’ and my choice is to acknowledge the laws of nature, of which the human capacity for both reason AND emotion (and thus morality) are basic.
I certainly agree with you that there is a great push towards socialism in the US, as well as in other nations around the world but socialism does not, in itself, require the rejection of any belief in god! I am opposed to socialism in our modern world (it’s found in hunting and gathering bands) because it disables the productive capacity of the people. Economically, in the industrial era, socialism is a disaster.
Socialism, which is the belief that the individual is subsumed within and dependent upon the operations of the state or collective rather than himself for his material and even moral well-being has been around as long as mankind. Non-industrial tribes, which consider their very existence as specifically due to god, are socialist.
The question ought to be focused around ‘hubris’ not on a belief in god. Aristotle wrote, and he rejected any Platonic belief in a non-material Force, that since we are all material beings, and thus, finite, we must acknowledge our fallibility. We must not fall into the trap of arrogance or hubris; we must acknowledge that we not only don’t know but cannot know everything or solve all problems.
I also don’t think that ‘being a Republican’ by which I understand you to mean ‘living in a Republic’ (perhaps I don’t understand your meaning)has anything to do with requiring any belief in god. A republic is simply a model of government that rejects inherited authority and opts for elected authority. Period.
And no, I don’t think that not believing in god leads to death and have no idea to what you are referring to in the last few lines of your post. You surely can’t be claiming that the tragedy in a school kindergarten is due to not believing in god. So I’ve no idea of your meaning.
A republic is simply a model of government that rejects inherited authority and opts for elected authority. Period.
In a Republic the people are the authority. Just because they elect someone to represent them doesn’t mean they give up that authority. The people elect someone to represent that authority, the people don’t give up authority to some elected politician.
What you describe is a democracy.
Thanks for the history lesson ET, but you once again miss the point…entirely! stradivarious understands and hits the nail on the head. Please read the post and give it a bit more grey matter attention.
I understand your disagreement of the statement that not believing in God leads to death. But that is just your belief system, which you are entitled to, no matter how wrong or blind you are.
If you would like to read another former atheist’s attempt to scientifically disprove God’s existence, have a look at Josh McDowell’s writings. He has already done the work for you and asked most of the questions which you are either afraid to ask or just care to ask. But, you are intelligent enough and curious enough to have at least have thought about them before.
I find it a curious thing thought, that you are unable to grasp the difference between a Republican as a personal belief system and a political party alignment. Not sure how to make it more clear, even with strat’s help…
And you are correct that the liberals and socialism are to blame for the lack of compassion and misdirection which most of what the school system is responsible for. The ATA has wanted to strip God from the classroom. This is what the classroom looks like without God. Need some more clarity?
glacierman, this thread wasn’t about a ‘Republican’ as a personal belief system, but about the Republican model of government [and the democratic method of arriving at decisions].
You have used the term ‘Republican’ with two different meanings. I wouldn’t use the term ‘Republican’ to refer to a personal belief system but would use the term ‘liberal’. And I mean the original meaning of ‘liberal’. I certainly agree with its axioms of personal responsibility and individual freedom. Again, this thread was talking about the model of government not a personal belief system.
As for McDowell, I find no reason with his empirical attempts to historically and archaeologically prove that there was someone called ‘Jesus’ to use that data to provide any evidence for the existence of a metaphysical determinist agent for the world, ie, god.
I’ll add that the logical or non-empirical arguments from such as Anselm and Aquinas are, to me, also unconvincing.
That there is such a thing as innate order, logic, even reason, rather than pure randomness within the functioning of the world, can be seen in the petals of a flower, but I reject that this is due to any metaphysical agent.
No, I didn’t say or even imply that ‘the liberals and socialism are to blame for the lack of compassion and misdirection’ in the school system. Compassion and misdirection by the way are two different things. You’ll have to outline what you consider the correct direction!
You write ‘This is what the classroom looks like without God’. To what are you referring? What do you mean by ‘this’? Again, you can’t be referring to the school tragedy, so, to what are you referring?
Andn I’ll stand by my definitions of the difference between a model and a method,that is, between a republic and a democratic method.
A related explanation, easy enough for someone in grade 8 to understand… (If it all seems hijacked as of late, well, yeah.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE
send Obumbles this info, he may be behind a little on this!!!!
Santelli seems to get more manic every time I see him; never dull, always has a point, even if it takes him a while to get to it.
First time I have heard Mr.Santelli. His point seems to be,we are f&*ked,whether a republic or democracy.So which is the lesser of three evils?
Republic?
Democracy?
Benevolent(?)Dictator?
I am so confuzzed.
Yes, the big distinction that in the US Republic the sovereignty rests with the individual is something the ‘morally and intellectually superior’ crowd don’t like to play up. Kinda interferes with control of people.
His point that, in a democracy, sovereignty rests within the ‘group’ is interesting. I suppose that’s why leftists are so big on democracy. It’s easy to put people into groups, whether they want to be there or not.
Well while we are educating feather headed big gov’t wonks about basic gov’t models…we might want to school those morons on the advantages and disadvantages of free vs. black markets.
As we speak, Greek markets are going underground and dropping off the grid. Barter and cash is king, deals are done under the table and the people are starving their gov’t with the full intent of killing it.
Rest assured, there are ways to deal with leftist gov’t scum.
I disagree with Santelli’s distinction because he’s not comparing two models of societal organization.
A republic is a particular mode or model of societal organization where authority is vested in the people rather than a hereditary agent. As such, it requires elections or other agreed upon methods to appoint these authorities.
Democracy is not a mode of societal organization but a method of coming to a decision within that society or group. All it means is that a vote is taken and the majority wins. You can use this method of validating a decision in a republic.
The US is both a republic and a democracy. Canada is both a constitutional monarchy, with an elected parliament and a democracy.
Nonsense….$%$, America is neither a democracy or republic, think about it, which political party wants to do away with the fiat monetary system. Until the media can at least acknowledges what is fundamentally wrong, (How can you fix things, that are not even talked about)then you know its all lies.
Democracy is not a mode of societal organization but a method of coming to a decision within that society or group.
Via ‘groups’.
Santelli was right. The majority vote is being used to subvert the sovereignty of the individual.
Big bad Jim – yes, the rise of the black market is a response to an excessive government taxation. Quebec, for example, has a huge black market economy.
But that’s not the point of the discussion, which is about Santelli’s incorrect comparison of a ‘model of societal organization’ with a ‘method of coming to a decision within a group’. The two, a model and a method, obviously refer to two different things and thus can’t be compared.
A republic is a model of social organization and a democracy is how that population arrives at a decision. After all, IF, in a republic, governing power rests with ‘the people’, then those same people must also have a method of coming to decisions.
In a constitutional democratic method, decisions are reached by having those same people taking a vote. The majority wins the decision. The minority continue in opposition. Thus, the debate can, sometimes, continue, for the fact that governance rests with the people means that decisions can be changed over time. But only if the people wish such changes to take place.
ET, “A republic is a model of social organization and a democracy is how that population arrives at a decision”,agreed.
ET, also, “All it means is that a vote is taken and the majority wins. You can use this method of validating a decision in a republic”.
But, as stradivarious says, “The majority vote is being used to subvert the sovereignty of the individual.” I think we are seeing this happen more frequently in the last number of decades as a sort of brainwashed group-think has been nourished by those with an agenda and who have more than the health of democracy in mind.
Ken, the ‘sovereignty’ of the individual extends only to the limits of the individual’s domain. That domain refers only to aspects of life which are considered specifically private as opposed to public.
You are ignoring that our species cannot and does not live as an isolate or private entity but is also a public or social entity. That’s why our species has the capacity for language. That’s why our knowledge is not genetic but learned.
The individual doesn’t have sovereignty over issues that are deemed public. For example, the economy is a public process because it involves collaboration and communication. Roads are a public process for the same reason. Surely no individual has the right to make a decision about an economic transaction just on his own; he must include the others involved. If he doesn’t, it’s called extortion or theft or whatever.
Democracy is a method of arriving at a decision within the community. Most certainly it acknowledges the majority, and so it should. The majority is not always right and that’s why in a democracy the minority continues to operate, within the right of freedom of speech and freedom of association. If this minority manages to persuade others of the validity of their views, then, over time the collective laws can be changed.
A group is always, almost by definition, ‘brain-washed’. At least, the minorities will think so, and this is hardly a novel situation but exists as long as our species has existed. Again, the minorities will have to persuade others of the validity of their views.
What you are referring to, possibly, is the increasing intrusion of a centralist government in the lives of individuals. For example, where government dictates the sixe of the container of sweet soda you may purchase! That has nothing to do with either the republican model or the democratic method but with the mindset of a population that hands over decision making to a centralist government.
The majority of in the democratic part of the US just voted to give to themselves money they voted to take from the rich.
Assuming that the election results actually reflect the will of the people and the numbers were not skewed by rigged voting then the US can be both a Republic and a Democracy. That being said a Democracy and a Republic can be destroyed from within by either ignorant voting (what’s in it for me) or rigged voting. In the last election we saw prime examples of both.
Unfortunately the last USA election strongly indicated that most Americans are happy with their current leadership. Rick’s concerns are falling on empty heads or at a minimum deaf ears.
I often wonder how much of the monetary stimulation is a simple attempt to limit interest rates. Let alone the cost to government if their debt financing cost go up but what impact on personal debt. Even a 1% increase in finance cost would be devastating.
What upsets me about Rick’s missives is the somewhat condesending manner the anchor uses. Laugh it off even if he wants to cry.
The individual doesn’t have sovereignty over issues that are deemed public. For example, the economy is a public process because it involves collaboration and communication. Roads are a public process for the same reason. Surely no individual has the right to make a decision about an economic transaction just on his own; he must include the others involved. If he doesn’t, it’s called extortion or theft or whatever.
A good example of why government needs to be as inefficient as possible. So idiots like ET cannot ‘deem’ what is public and what is private according to their skewed view.
Another of Santelli’s points.
France had a democracy and a republic – where collectivist republicans (proto commies) and collectivist monarchists sat across from each other and a military dictator presided over this parliament of the French Republic.
The Chinese and every latin Marxist Junta have a “Republic”.
The ony thing which makes a republic is a founding doument called a constitution which puts the people in charge of thei government and allows for the legal overthrow of any government which deviates from the document without a mandate from the people. It also needs a population who are constantly vigilant against corrupt government.
Canada would make a lousy Republic because we are too lazy/gutless to remain free independent citizens and relegate our civil duties to government and we are too apathetic to care when government becomes our master.
Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
BTWL The fact Santelli has to “reveal” the simple nature of a republic (where sovereignty rests) to a modern America, is an indication the US is no longer a republic – hasn’t been since the 1913 central banking coup and when Dewy and Bernays created the “educrat”
“The vigilant sleep at their own peril”- JP Jones
Can someone explain to me the democrat strategy here? Currently their big plan is to convince people that tax cuts cause economic disaster and tax increases lead to prosperity. I know we live in a post-reality world but when it becomes evident even to the most retarded person on the street that the tax increases didn’t work what will they do? I can’t believe they can keep blaming it on Republicans and Bush forever. At some point people will realize what’s going on right?
The problem with ET’s shortsightedness is that she does not believe in God as the architect of Creation who set this whole thing in motion. The rule of chance and luck are the M/O of her world view.
Whereas those who wrote the US Consitutution had a very firm belief in a living and active Sovereign, who gave every human being those individual and equal rights. They fully understood that each human was created equal, but not with the same skillset or capacity. There were those who are weak and those who are strong, but they are each possess the same life-force called the human spirit, soul and body.
That is why they chose to set up a Republic, because it stated and affirmed their world view of each man, woman and child as being a sovereign individual, yet dependent on the others in their community to be strong and stay strong.
The beauty and brilliance of that Constitution has been tarnished by those who no longer believe in the supremacy of the Creator, who gave each person their own right to choose the life that they can live.
Those in the Democracy dominated “group think” mentality believe that the collective gives them their voice. The charismatic and power-hungry draw the masses to themselves with ideas that define the people’s value systems and imposes them on the rest. The leader’s greatest fear and challenge is the sovereign individual because they cannot be bought or sold, they can only be mocked, scorned, ridiculed, threatened and when that does not work, eliminated.
Democracies only work when each person has a healthy grasp of their God-given rights and responsibilities; but that then trumps the need for the democracy as it now becomes a Republic.
Democracies are for Atheists, Dualist, Agnostics and all other forms of God-haters.
Republics, the others.
The simplest definitions:
Democracy: anybody in a society can propose the law, everybody votes. It killed Socrates.
Republic: One of our own represent us. In case of Rome, arose from overthrowing monarchy and led to military dictatorship.
Socrates got a jury trial after a preliminary hearing in front of a judge, and was convicted by 280 votes to 220 votes. He was sentenced to death by 360 votes to 140 votes. The prosecution case is not given in the accounts. He was probably convicted of being anti-democratic, which he unquestionably was.
glacierman, sorry, but I don’t think that the definition of a responsible government requires that one believes in god.
It may surprise you, but atheists are, gosh, able to think, and thus, gosh, have morals and ethics.
Again, the definition of Republic is that it is a mode or model of government where authority is vested in non-hereditary or elected agents.
The definition of democracy is that it is NOT a mode or model of government, but a METHOD of coming to a decision. All it states is that in a democracy, the majority vote wins. Then, you must set up rules for ‘who has the right to vote’ etc.
oldfart, I don’t know if Socrates was anti-democratic, but Plato sure was; Plato was a totalitarian. The Taliban have nothing on him. Read Plato’s Republic.
As Aristotle wrote in his Politics, ‘liberty is the first principle of democracy…the numerical majority is supreme’.
xiat, your outline of ‘anybody can vote’ is a decision making method that operates without a governing model. As Popper wrote, in The Open Society, p.123, it is a ‘naive version’ for it effectively acts as a tyranny. It ignores the rule of law and a constitution. It is a degenerate state….and reminds me of Obama’s tactic of ‘ including as many as they can, and making citizens not only of those who are legitimate but even of the illegitimate’.. (Politics: 1319b:5).
And your definition of a Republic as ‘one of our own represents us’ is ambiguous. You could say the same thing about a democratic vote.
The point of a Republic, is that leadership is, being non-hereditary, open to change.
And the point of democracy, which entitles all citizens to have a say in their governance by their vote, is that, as a METHOD of arriving at a decision, it rejects decision-making by one person, or by an aristocracy or by a small set. It invests decision-making power in the people, or, all citizens.
As Popper also outlines (pp 160-161), ‘Democracy cannot be fully characterized as the rule of the majority…In a democracy the rulers; that is to say, the government, can be dismissed by the ruled without bloodshed. Thus if the men in power do not safeguard those institutions which secure to the minority the possibility of working for a peaceful change, then their rule is a tyranny’.
Again, the democratic method, as a means of arriving at decisions, by vote of the people, enables the minority who lose the vote, to argue and convince others of the validity of their opinion.
That is,
ET, nice sidestep.
Once again your logic is lost on morality. The atheist adopts the local flavour of morality to survive, and we have been down that rabbit hole before without you really understanding or ignoring the whole dynamics of morality.
Please re-read and comprehend the deeper meaning of God-give rights and equality to get the foundation of a Republican. He is one who knows who and what he is first and foremost as an individual, then within his community.
Democrats are programed with the group-think first and then try and fit the peg into the hole. The construct in the measure, not the individual.
That is the point Rick Santelli is making.
glacierman, your definition of an atheist’s morality as ‘the local flavour’ is your own opinion and not a valid description of atheism.
Your conclusion that I have no understanding of and ignore the ‘whole dynamics of morality’ is again, your opinion. I leave you to enjoy it.
Again, what you seem to ignore is that the definition of a republic (which is not the same as the Republican Party) defines a governing MODEL where authority is not vested in heredity power but is elected.
This has nothing to do with god-given rights, but a Republic most certainly acknowledges that all its citizens are individuals who are equal and have basic fundamental or natural rights.
The definition of a democracy (which is not the same as the Democratic Party) is that it comes to a decision by a METHOD where the majority vote wins.
Nothing to do with individuals or groups, but merely a method of coming to a decision. Democracy acknowledges that all the members of the group (this can be the citizens, or the members of a particular club or school or dinner party) have the right to vote, and the majority decision wins. That’s all.
Therefore, the US is both a republic and a democracy.
Therefore, the US is both a republic and a democracy.
Not so.
Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
ET, you are still blinded by your world view that our true identity is not based in a Supreme Creator and loving God. That is the disconnect which is lost throughout all of your posts. You don’t agree which is your free choice, but that is not the view of the Founding Fathers and the writers of the US Constitution. That is the issue which Santelli was making. The foundations of the principles which they understood and lived by are now either lost to the masses or as most have stated through the many posts here on SDA, they are being deconstructed and replaced by socialist group-thinkers who want a secular state, rid of all things referring to God in any way, shape and form.
Inalienable rights are bestowed on the individual and that is the basis for the term Republican. It is not a country club association, which you were referring to above, but by the belief system associated with being a Republican.
Denial will lead to death, and that is exactly what we have witnessed in the last few days. The chickens are coming home to roost.
glacierman. I do understand your perspective but I don’t agree with it; I don’t consider myself ‘blinded’ by my refusal to believe in god.
The US is, itself, secular in that its legislative laws are not within the authority of religion. Their Constitution refers only to their legislative rules and says nothing about any non-legislated authorities nor about any metaphysical agency.
The Declaration of Independence does indeed refer to, first, ‘The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God’ and my choice is to acknowledge the laws of nature, of which the human capacity for both reason AND emotion (and thus morality) are basic.
I certainly agree with you that there is a great push towards socialism in the US, as well as in other nations around the world but socialism does not, in itself, require the rejection of any belief in god! I am opposed to socialism in our modern world (it’s found in hunting and gathering bands) because it disables the productive capacity of the people. Economically, in the industrial era, socialism is a disaster.
Socialism, which is the belief that the individual is subsumed within and dependent upon the operations of the state or collective rather than himself for his material and even moral well-being has been around as long as mankind. Non-industrial tribes, which consider their very existence as specifically due to god, are socialist.
The question ought to be focused around ‘hubris’ not on a belief in god. Aristotle wrote, and he rejected any Platonic belief in a non-material Force, that since we are all material beings, and thus, finite, we must acknowledge our fallibility. We must not fall into the trap of arrogance or hubris; we must acknowledge that we not only don’t know but cannot know everything or solve all problems.
I also don’t think that ‘being a Republican’ by which I understand you to mean ‘living in a Republic’ (perhaps I don’t understand your meaning)has anything to do with requiring any belief in god. A republic is simply a model of government that rejects inherited authority and opts for elected authority. Period.
And no, I don’t think that not believing in god leads to death and have no idea to what you are referring to in the last few lines of your post. You surely can’t be claiming that the tragedy in a school kindergarten is due to not believing in god. So I’ve no idea of your meaning.
A republic is simply a model of government that rejects inherited authority and opts for elected authority. Period.
In a Republic the people are the authority. Just because they elect someone to represent them doesn’t mean they give up that authority. The people elect someone to represent that authority, the people don’t give up authority to some elected politician.
What you describe is a democracy.
Thanks for the history lesson ET, but you once again miss the point…entirely! stradivarious understands and hits the nail on the head. Please read the post and give it a bit more grey matter attention.
I understand your disagreement of the statement that not believing in God leads to death. But that is just your belief system, which you are entitled to, no matter how wrong or blind you are.
If you would like to read another former atheist’s attempt to scientifically disprove God’s existence, have a look at Josh McDowell’s writings. He has already done the work for you and asked most of the questions which you are either afraid to ask or just care to ask. But, you are intelligent enough and curious enough to have at least have thought about them before.
I find it a curious thing thought, that you are unable to grasp the difference between a Republican as a personal belief system and a political party alignment. Not sure how to make it more clear, even with strat’s help…
And you are correct that the liberals and socialism are to blame for the lack of compassion and misdirection which most of what the school system is responsible for. The ATA has wanted to strip God from the classroom. This is what the classroom looks like without God. Need some more clarity?
glacierman, this thread wasn’t about a ‘Republican’ as a personal belief system, but about the Republican model of government [and the democratic method of arriving at decisions].
You have used the term ‘Republican’ with two different meanings. I wouldn’t use the term ‘Republican’ to refer to a personal belief system but would use the term ‘liberal’. And I mean the original meaning of ‘liberal’. I certainly agree with its axioms of personal responsibility and individual freedom. Again, this thread was talking about the model of government not a personal belief system.
As for McDowell, I find no reason with his empirical attempts to historically and archaeologically prove that there was someone called ‘Jesus’ to use that data to provide any evidence for the existence of a metaphysical determinist agent for the world, ie, god.
I’ll add that the logical or non-empirical arguments from such as Anselm and Aquinas are, to me, also unconvincing.
That there is such a thing as innate order, logic, even reason, rather than pure randomness within the functioning of the world, can be seen in the petals of a flower, but I reject that this is due to any metaphysical agent.
No, I didn’t say or even imply that ‘the liberals and socialism are to blame for the lack of compassion and misdirection’ in the school system. Compassion and misdirection by the way are two different things. You’ll have to outline what you consider the correct direction!
You write ‘This is what the classroom looks like without God’. To what are you referring? What do you mean by ‘this’? Again, you can’t be referring to the school tragedy, so, to what are you referring?
Andn I’ll stand by my definitions of the difference between a model and a method,that is, between a republic and a democratic method.