The Difference between "Republic and Democracy..."

I saw this link while surfing the web,   I have stated many times to the people who think that this country is a "democracy"   It is not....The founding fathers viewed "democracy" as "mob rule"  and it was a very chaotic form of government.  We were not referred as a "democracy" until Woodrow Wilson, the father of the modern liberal/progressive movement.  The Republic is "rule of Law" vs the" Rule of the mob"   I always liked Democracy as 3 wolves and 1 sheep voting on dinner...Whereas "Republic"  the sheep are armed.

Republic vs. Democracy

Rule by Law vs. Rule by Majority

Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Not only have we failed to keep it, most don't even know what it is.

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution).   A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule).   A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good). Lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic requiring approval from the House, Senate, Executive (President or Governor), The Supreme Court, and individual jurors (jury-nullification).   Lawmaking in our unlawful democracy occurs rapidly requiring approval from the whim of the majority as determined by polls and/or voter referendums.   Voter referendums allow legislators to blame bad law on the people.   A good example of democracy in action is a lynch mob.
Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury.   To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority.   As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive.   When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a Dictatorship.
Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our Founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true.   The Founders knew full well the differences between a Republic and a Democracy.   They repeatedly and emphatically said that they had founded a Republic.
Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government".... Conversely, the word Democracy is not mentioned even once in the Constitution.   Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with these words,

"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...", "We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.   It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic." James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)
"A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.   There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men." Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

Our military training manuals used to contain the correct definitions of Democracy and Republic. The following comes from Training Manual No. 2000-25 published by the War Department, November 30, 1928.
DEMOCRACY:

• A government of the masses.
• Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
• Results in mobocracy.
• Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
• Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
• Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC:

• Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
• Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
• A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
• Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
• Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
• Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

The manuals containing these definitions were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt made private ownership of our lawful money (US Minted Gold Coins) illegal.   Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce.   Almost overnight F.D.R., the most popular president this century (elected 4 times) looted almost half of this nation's wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good.   Many of F.D.R.'s policies were suggested by his right hand man, Harry Hopkins, who said,

"Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference".

---

Coyote control, government versus Wyoming Ranchers

I read this from here, and I got a real chuckle out of this

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

COYOTE HUNTING AND THE GOVERNMENT

The old fellow in the big cowboy hat got a standing ovation

The Sierra Club and the U. S. Forest Service were presenting an alternative to the Wyoming ranchers for controlling the coyote population.

It seems that after years of the ranchers using the tried and true method of shooting or trapping the predators, the Sierra Club had a "more humane" solution to this issue.

What they were proposing was for the animals to be captured alive.

The males would then be castrated and let loose again. This was ACTUALLY proposed by the Sierra Club and by the U. S. Forest Service.

All of the ranchers thought about this amazing idea for a couple of minutes.

Finally an old fellow wearing a big cowboy hat in the back of the conference room stood up, tipped his hat back and said, "Son, I don't think you understand our problem here. These coyotes ain't fuckin' our sheep; they're eatin' 'em!"

The meeting never really got back to order.

wonder why most people don't trust government

You won't see it on your receipt from the state's liquor stores. And it's downright difficult to find a reference to it on the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board's website.

But the Johnstown Flood Tax is still there, hiking the cost of anything you purchase at one of the state stores by 18 percent.

The tax was enacted June 9, 1936, weeks after the St. Patrick's Day flood devastated the Cambria County city. As originally proposed, it was a 10 percent tax on liquor store purchases to raise money for relief from the flood.
And it was supposed to be temporary.
"It had raised around $40 million by the early 1940s, and that was what they were looking for to cover the cost of repairing flood damage," said state Rep. Jim Marshall, R-14, Big Beaver. "It should have gone away at that point, and it didn't."
The tax not only didn't come off the books, but members of the General Assembly raised it -- twice -- in the 1960s, to 15 percent in 1963 and to the current 18 percent in 1968. And despite outliving its intended life by about 70 years, it's proven to be resilient; Marshall said it brought in about $250 million to the state's general fund in 2010, and that's a tough figure to just give up.
"There have been a number of attempts to end the flood tax, and none have been been successful," Marshall said. "There are two more bills up this session, and we'll see how they do."
Piling on
Ask opponents of the tax, such as Philadelphia-based beer and spirits writer Lew Bryson, and it can be tough to get them to stop talking.
"You can't say that the tax is double-dipping. It's actually triple-dipping," Bryson said. "And it's a hidden tax. It doesn't show up anywhere, and until a few years ago, I don't think many people even knew it existed."
Bryson said that after a federal excise tax (which varies based on the proof and quantity of the liquor; for a fifth of 80 proof, it's $2.14) is added to the original cost, the state adds a 30 percent markup. The 18 percent flood tax is calculated after the excise tax and state markup. The state's 6 percent sales tax is then tacked on, making the price consumers pay roughly twice what the state paid.
"It's a tax of a tax of a tax, and another tax or two is added on top of that," Bryson said. "It is no wonder that we have one of the highest prices for liquor or wine in the country."
But Bryson said what might be his biggest problem with the Johnstown Flood Tax is a matter of simple transparency.
"Even if nothing ever changes with the tax, it would somehow make me feel a little better if they just changed the name," he said. "It hasn't been a Johnstown Flood Tax for decades, so let's at least be honest and call it the 'Pennsylvania Commonwealth Drinking Tax' or something."
Marshall said he has a similar problem with the tax.
 I got this from here

I have stated many times that once government gets an income stream, it gets addicted to the money.


"This is the perfect example of why the people don't trust government," Marshall said. "A temporary tax that's been on the books for 75 years? Named for a purpose that was accomplished in the 1940s?
"My concern with the Johnstown Flood Tax isn't so much a fiscal one," he added. "It's more of a concern about it being a cause for doubt or suspicion of what government does."
Two more tries
The state's complicated system of rules for alcohol sales has received a fair amount of attention since last November's election, as a Republican governor and Republican majorities in both houses of the General Assembly have people thinking that big changes, including privatization of the state's liquor stores, could be on the way.
Those issues, including the Johnstown Flood Tax, have come up before. Could this be the year that something finally changes?
"I think there's a pretty good shot at changing the tax ... or doing something bigger (with alcohol sales)," said Rep. Rob Matzie, D-16, Ambridge. "That's certainly an issue that the majority wants to take a look at."
Marshall said there are two House bills, both of which he has co-sponsored, to eliminate the flood tax; one would cut it next year and the other would phase it out by the start of 2015. The bills, both written by Republicans, have been referred to the House Liquor Control Committee for consideration.
"You have to be careful about replacing the revenue or reducing spending somewhere else," Marshall said. "But I think we have a pretty good chance with the flood tax this session."
Matzie said he'd need to see more information about the current tax, where its revenue goes and how the money could be replaced before committing support to one of the two bills that address the tax.
"In general, though, a phased-out approach would be the right way to go," he said. "I don't think it's a bad idea, but I want to see some more specifics first."
For Marshall, though, the answer is easy.
"This is a move to do the right thing," he said. "A temporary tax to fix something needs to stop when the something is fixed. That's what we need to do here."