The Church of Kharma Futures

The Rev's views on politics, events,faith, and the world. All content copyright Church of Kharma Future 2007-2015 All rights Reserved

Liberty or Democracy

Posted by revkharma on April 24, 2008

For many years, the buzzword in the press and politics has been Democracy. We “fight for Democracy”. Keep the world safe for Democracy. America is “The Arsenal of Democracy”. Look to our founders, and read their writings. The last thing they wanted to form was a democracy. Democracy is, literally rule by the mob. The United States of America was founded as, and still is–despite many assaults– a Constitutional Republic.

As our politicians move us ever closer towards democracy they continue to reduce the one thing prized by the founders more than almost anything else. Liberty. Liberty is the ideal which motivated those great men to fight the troops of the King of England. Liberty is the reason the second amendment enshrined the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. A well armed populace cannot be cowed by an encroaching government. Proponents of democracy seek to restrict liberty in order to maximize control of the population by government. Frederic Bastiat wrote eloquently about this in “The Law“. I have linked to this pamphlet since the founding of this blog.

Democracy allows those in power to do whatever they need in order to maintain that hold on power. A constitutional republic has a founding document which restricts the power of government and it’s ability to curtail individual liberty.

The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights given to Americans by the government. Read it. The Bill of Rights was earth-shattering in it’s premise that people granted government the power to govern, and the first ten amendments specifically outline those rights which the government of the United States may never impinge. When is the last time a member of Congress, House or Senate, restricted a bill, or an agency because it conflicted with the Bill of Rights? Instead, they continue to use the force of government– and make no mistake, government backs up laws with force of arms–to seize property and money from some to provide goods or services to others deemed ‘more in need’ . Bastiat specifically described this while discussing “legal Plunder”:

“The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.”

Can you find a better description of the motives of those wishing to enact restrictions to the individual right to own arms protected by the Second Amendment?

There are those in this nation who argue that we need to ‘provide national health care’ for all. Why? Well, because some can afford it, and it is not fair for others not to be able to have the same insurance benefits as “the rich” have. And just how will this be paid for? Simple: We’ll increase taxes on the rich, make them pay their fair share, in order to provide for those ‘less fortunate’ than they are. Once again Mr. Bastiat was directly on point:

“Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole –with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism.”

Does any of this sound familiar? Ring any bells out there? We are in the grip of a government out of control, which has broken free of the tethers which the Constitution originally placed upon it.

I’m not offering solutions here, just sending out a signal, a wake up call. I don’t pretend to be the first, nor the most eloquent. Just another voice. But each voice that joins the chorus makes it louder, stronger and more difficult to ignore.

The mainstream politicians have grown fat and happy while the people have been steadily fed a diet of pop culture, which breeds ignorance. It’s time look at other parties. Here’s a quote from someone interesting:

“To be for liberty, you must be for it consistently, respecting the lives of others in all matters. You cannot make an exception for the War on Terror. You cannot make an exception for the War on Poverty. You cannot make an exception for the War on Drugs. You cannot make an exception for gays or prostitutes. You can’t let bureaucrats deny dying patients life-saving medicine just because the FDA hasn’t yet approved it. You can’t take another’s money or land and give it to another.

Liberty is indivisible. It’s the one thing we can’t have unless we are willing to give it others. If someone tells you differently, they just don’t know how the world really works. Make sure that you don’t vote them into power.”

These words are from Mary J. Ruwart, Ph.D., She’s seeking the Libertarian nomination for president. She’s worth a look, at least.

I’m not endorsing anyone, just suggesting that it’s time to look for alternatives. Libertarian, Constitution, something, ANYTHING that’s not those in power.

As always, Keep The Faith!

The Rev


One Response to “Liberty or Democracy”

  1. deaconkharmafuture1 said

    “We ‘fight for Democracy’. Keep the world safe for Democracy. America is “The Arsenal of Democracy”. Look to our founders, and read their writings. The last thing they wanted to form was a democracy.”
    To understand a large portion of this slide is simple nd one must always remember this one thing if nothing else. Control the language and you control the argument, or the debate.
    For example “democracy” has been used in replacement of “Republic”. “Automatic” replaced “semi-automatic”. “Arsenal” has replaced a “collection” or a “few guns”. “Militia” has become an evil word and even a disqualifier to the paper work to buy a firearm. “Assault weapon” is now cosmetic instead of a description of function of the weapon. See the Clinton AWB (assault weapons ban). The “Second Amendment” means “right to hunt” and having a hunting weapon. I even was shocked that one man, on Fox news (a guest) defended inflamatory and disgusting internet info/postings of advice on pedophilia and had the audacity to say “this is precisely what the first amendment was for”. Again, morph the language to fit your side and you take control of the debate. So instead of free speech against the government with grievances, the first amendment is more a free expression of the often offensive. All the while, “Free speech Zones” are used to cordon off free speech to distant and remote locations away from the effective area surrounding the government official. Both Bush and Clinton enjoyed the use of these zones. Perhaps that in itself should tell you something? When both sides are talking democracy, perhaps we need to pick new sides?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: