I really like the band Trial. Along with a certain talk radio host, an individual who probably never knew I was listening to what he said, and self evaluation, they are partly responsible for my political awakening. The title of this article is inspired by a line from their song "Are these our lives?" It's a question we should all be asking.
In the wake of all that happened in last two weeks with a Super congress, the debt ceiling, downgrade in the credit rating, the burst of the recovery bubble, and the results and reporting of the Ames Straw Poll, there has been a lot of rhetoric from our two wonderful establishment parties. We saw the theatrical show that went on for 3 months, with no intermission, about the debt ceiling. We were told about responsible spending, defaulting, and credit scores. We were told that increasing the debt ceiling would avert the ‘potential’ coming crisis and we saw blame slung from one side to another. Then, just in the nick of time for congress’s vacation, the new debt ceiling passed and as an added bonus we got Super Congress. Super Congress, well how could that possibly be bad, it has the word super in it. Except, the very next day congress proceeded to allocate new spending for 60% of the new debt limit, and we find out that they plan to shove all sorts of legislation through our shiny new Super Congress that couldn’t pass our regular old boring Congress. It is as if the members of Congress were saying to us “Hey, American people, Go f*ck yourselves.” The fact is there are a lot of economic lessons to come out of the actions taken last week, and even more to learn from their failures to come, but what I think is more important to point out is that we were bamboozled, again, by the fallacy of representation we have in Washington.
The two-part system is failing us, It has been for a very long time. Moreover, we were warned that it would.
“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” - John Adams
“(In reference to the nature of a political party) It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”- George Washington
For starters, the problem with this is that there is no X-axis to their “spectrum” other than their perception of each other’s ideals. More important is that most of the things presented as government in their scenario aren’t forms of government. Not until you hit the upper side of the Y- axis are you talking about factual types of government and everything in between are words and concepts they have defined, and of course we are talking about our “democracy” here.
The first thing you will notice is that we now have an X-axis based on the scope of power the government has. You’ll also notice that there is a significant jump in the size of government from some forms to the others. These differences were determined by considering the number of people who are in power, the limitation to said power and any systems of checks and balances. I should note that the republic graphed is our constitutionally outlined republic, to be exact.
Anarchy is the form of government where there is no official government, conceptualy allowing for complete and total freedom of the people. The people govern themselves, and they can do whatever they want. This is not a stable nor a constant form of government and as disagreements arise so do leaders, which almost always leads to an oligarchy or monarchy.
A republic is the form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain supreme control over the government. The government is restricted by the Rule of Law which is usually in the form of a constitution. A properly developed republic allows for the maximum amount of individual liberty by implementing laws that protect the people from externalities. It should also set up a system of checks and balances in order to separate itself from an oligarchy or monarchy. This is where many who claim the term “republic” fail in actually forming one, i.e.:The People’s Republic of China. A republic is a consistent form of government as long the people do not allow laws to be broken by the government. In America we have effectively lost our republic, in practice. All the laws are still there, however, we do not hold our government to them. Our government has chosen to operate like a representative democracy2, as well as being a part of a global Oligarchy. These actions are illegal.
Thomas Jefferson1 is often quoted as saying “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.” Democracy is a form of government where things are decided with a majority vote, also known as mob rule. There is no limitation to what the government can do other than having to persuade a majority of people it is right. The wishes and Ideals of 51% out weigh those of the other 49%. Democracy is particularly dangerous when it comes to suppressing the rights of the minority of the population. It also makes it impossible for a fair judicial system, which perhaps, is why our leaders here in America are so fond of it. Democracies, like Anarchies, are not stable forms of government, as all it takes is a simple majority vote to take away the rights of certain citizens, or even implement another form of government altogether. If a dictator can convince 51% of the population that what they need is a dictatorship, goodbye democracy.
An oligarchy is the form of government where a group of people share equal power and they are not restricted by a founding doctrine or the rule of law. The UN is a global oligarchy, it has no rule of law limiting its powers, simply an amendable charter that lists all the things they can do. This is also where you would find socialism and crony capitalism, which is actually called a plutocracy. I don’t see the need to go into great depth on the potential for infringements on people’s liberty when government clearly defines a ruling class and gives them unlimited power.
Leaving us with monarchies, which are very similar to oligarchies only with the group replaced by a single person. This is where you find communism and fascism. Notice that those in D.C. would have you argue they are opposite ends of the spectrum. Yet, they are the same forms of government, the only difference being the type of person who is in control. Hitler was a fascist who supposedly hated communism but preached socialism, but Hitler wasn’t exactly known for sound logic. And this is exactly why this is the most flawed forms of government: It takes only one lunatic to completely destroy your country.
After assessing the five forms of government, we can see that only three of them are stable enough to be more than transitional governments. I ask you which one is the most appealing: the one that considers those in government voluntary civil servants who work for the people based on the limited powers granted to them by the rule of law? Or, one of the forms of government that creates a ruling class, a group of people or a single person who is above the people without limit to his power? We are now told to pick a team’s jersey and root for them to win. Elections are run like the Super Bowl, lots of talk leading up to it, tons of commercials, and then no one is supposed to look back at the results when it’s all over. Your team either won or lost, see you next cycle. Problem is, if the Steeler's win the super bowl, they go to Disney World and ride rides. They don’t go to Washington and make laws that affect out lives. Should you decide to “follow” politics, instead of truthful evaluation based on facts, we are given platitudes and talking points by hired commentators driven by a desire to be a part of the ruling elite. They use buzz words and catch phrases and they repeat them over and over. You aren’t intended to apply your own logic to it, or even attempt to take the argument outside of its pre-determined box. This propaganda technique is called The Big Lie which is when you lie so regularly and uniformly that it becomes impossible to decipher the truth, and guess who developed it? Hitler.
Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels was Adolf Hitler's Propaganda Minister in Nazi Germany. He also served as Chancellor for one day, after Hitler’s Death. He is quoted as saying:“The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right. I speak differently in the provinces than I do in Berlin, and when I speak in Bayreuth, I say different things than I say in the Pharus Hall. That is a matter of practice, not of theory. We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths”
Frank Zappa described government and The Big Lie
“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed....”
Look back at any political debate we have had in the last ten years and tell me this doesn’t apply. If you don’t think it does, you’re falling for it.
-D
1) I can not validate that this quote was ever said by Thomas Jefferson, however, it is very often credited to him. Some say it sounds more like Ben Franklin. Either way, its point is valid.
2) “Isn’t a representative democracy a good thing?” The answer to this relies greatly on what you are comparing it to, but ultimately the answer is no. A representative democracy is probably the best form of democracy you can have, but it’s still a democracy and they are not stable forms of government. There is no necessity that individual liberties be respected in a representative democracy. The term liberal representative democracy is used to describe a representative democracy that respects individual liberty. The term is often used to describe the United State's constitutional republic. I believe this is an attempt to increase confusion on the matter.
In the wake of all that happened in last two weeks with a Super congress, the debt ceiling, downgrade in the credit rating, the burst of the recovery bubble, and the results and reporting of the Ames Straw Poll, there has been a lot of rhetoric from our two wonderful establishment parties. We saw the theatrical show that went on for 3 months, with no intermission, about the debt ceiling. We were told about responsible spending, defaulting, and credit scores. We were told that increasing the debt ceiling would avert the ‘potential’ coming crisis and we saw blame slung from one side to another. Then, just in the nick of time for congress’s vacation, the new debt ceiling passed and as an added bonus we got Super Congress. Super Congress, well how could that possibly be bad, it has the word super in it. Except, the very next day congress proceeded to allocate new spending for 60% of the new debt limit, and we find out that they plan to shove all sorts of legislation through our shiny new Super Congress that couldn’t pass our regular old boring Congress. It is as if the members of Congress were saying to us “Hey, American people, Go f*ck yourselves.” The fact is there are a lot of economic lessons to come out of the actions taken last week, and even more to learn from their failures to come, but what I think is more important to point out is that we were bamboozled, again, by the fallacy of representation we have in Washington.
The two-part system is failing us, It has been for a very long time. Moreover, we were warned that it would.
“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” - John Adams
“(In reference to the nature of a political party) It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”- George Washington
This problem goes even further than any single issue or group of issues. It stems from the misinformation that is spread about our type of government and the perception of a political spectrum that doesn’t exist. There is a great quote of Ben Franklin exiting the Constitutional Convention, and when asked what type of government the American people were going to participate in, he warned "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." The short of it is, we have not. Most Americans today believe we have a democracy, which we do not, and for good reason. Also they are led to believe the political spectrum looks something like this:
For starters, the problem with this is that there is no X-axis to their “spectrum” other than their perception of each other’s ideals. More important is that most of the things presented as government in their scenario aren’t forms of government. Not until you hit the upper side of the Y- axis are you talking about factual types of government and everything in between are words and concepts they have defined, and of course we are talking about our “democracy” here.
The real political spectrum is based on real forms of government. Governments throughout history have called themselves many different things, but there are only five separate forms of government: Anarchies, Republics, Democracies, Oligarchies, and Monarchies. The real political spectrum looks like this:
The first thing you will notice is that we now have an X-axis based on the scope of power the government has. You’ll also notice that there is a significant jump in the size of government from some forms to the others. These differences were determined by considering the number of people who are in power, the limitation to said power and any systems of checks and balances. I should note that the republic graphed is our constitutionally outlined republic, to be exact.
Anarchy is the form of government where there is no official government, conceptualy allowing for complete and total freedom of the people. The people govern themselves, and they can do whatever they want. This is not a stable nor a constant form of government and as disagreements arise so do leaders, which almost always leads to an oligarchy or monarchy.
A republic is the form of government in which the people, or some significant portion of them, retain supreme control over the government. The government is restricted by the Rule of Law which is usually in the form of a constitution. A properly developed republic allows for the maximum amount of individual liberty by implementing laws that protect the people from externalities. It should also set up a system of checks and balances in order to separate itself from an oligarchy or monarchy. This is where many who claim the term “republic” fail in actually forming one, i.e.:The People’s Republic of China. A republic is a consistent form of government as long the people do not allow laws to be broken by the government. In America we have effectively lost our republic, in practice. All the laws are still there, however, we do not hold our government to them. Our government has chosen to operate like a representative democracy2, as well as being a part of a global Oligarchy. These actions are illegal.
Thomas Jefferson1 is often quoted as saying “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.” Democracy is a form of government where things are decided with a majority vote, also known as mob rule. There is no limitation to what the government can do other than having to persuade a majority of people it is right. The wishes and Ideals of 51% out weigh those of the other 49%. Democracy is particularly dangerous when it comes to suppressing the rights of the minority of the population. It also makes it impossible for a fair judicial system, which perhaps, is why our leaders here in America are so fond of it. Democracies, like Anarchies, are not stable forms of government, as all it takes is a simple majority vote to take away the rights of certain citizens, or even implement another form of government altogether. If a dictator can convince 51% of the population that what they need is a dictatorship, goodbye democracy.
An oligarchy is the form of government where a group of people share equal power and they are not restricted by a founding doctrine or the rule of law. The UN is a global oligarchy, it has no rule of law limiting its powers, simply an amendable charter that lists all the things they can do. This is also where you would find socialism and crony capitalism, which is actually called a plutocracy. I don’t see the need to go into great depth on the potential for infringements on people’s liberty when government clearly defines a ruling class and gives them unlimited power.
Leaving us with monarchies, which are very similar to oligarchies only with the group replaced by a single person. This is where you find communism and fascism. Notice that those in D.C. would have you argue they are opposite ends of the spectrum. Yet, they are the same forms of government, the only difference being the type of person who is in control. Hitler was a fascist who supposedly hated communism but preached socialism, but Hitler wasn’t exactly known for sound logic. And this is exactly why this is the most flawed forms of government: It takes only one lunatic to completely destroy your country.
After assessing the five forms of government, we can see that only three of them are stable enough to be more than transitional governments. I ask you which one is the most appealing: the one that considers those in government voluntary civil servants who work for the people based on the limited powers granted to them by the rule of law? Or, one of the forms of government that creates a ruling class, a group of people or a single person who is above the people without limit to his power? We are now told to pick a team’s jersey and root for them to win. Elections are run like the Super Bowl, lots of talk leading up to it, tons of commercials, and then no one is supposed to look back at the results when it’s all over. Your team either won or lost, see you next cycle. Problem is, if the Steeler's win the super bowl, they go to Disney World and ride rides. They don’t go to Washington and make laws that affect out lives. Should you decide to “follow” politics, instead of truthful evaluation based on facts, we are given platitudes and talking points by hired commentators driven by a desire to be a part of the ruling elite. They use buzz words and catch phrases and they repeat them over and over. You aren’t intended to apply your own logic to it, or even attempt to take the argument outside of its pre-determined box. This propaganda technique is called The Big Lie which is when you lie so regularly and uniformly that it becomes impossible to decipher the truth, and guess who developed it? Hitler.
Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels was Adolf Hitler's Propaganda Minister in Nazi Germany. He also served as Chancellor for one day, after Hitler’s Death. He is quoted as saying:“The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right. I speak differently in the provinces than I do in Berlin, and when I speak in Bayreuth, I say different things than I say in the Pharus Hall. That is a matter of practice, not of theory. We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths”
Frank Zappa described government and The Big Lie
“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed....”
Look back at any political debate we have had in the last ten years and tell me this doesn’t apply. If you don’t think it does, you’re falling for it.
-D
1) I can not validate that this quote was ever said by Thomas Jefferson, however, it is very often credited to him. Some say it sounds more like Ben Franklin. Either way, its point is valid.
2) “Isn’t a representative democracy a good thing?” The answer to this relies greatly on what you are comparing it to, but ultimately the answer is no. A representative democracy is probably the best form of democracy you can have, but it’s still a democracy and they are not stable forms of government. There is no necessity that individual liberties be respected in a representative democracy. The term liberal representative democracy is used to describe a representative democracy that respects individual liberty. The term is often used to describe the United State's constitutional republic. I believe this is an attempt to increase confusion on the matter.
