Can the Republic be saved?

[J_Wales]

JW,

I hope you are active now because when push comes to shove it will be too late. For most of the ammo hoarders (of which I am one), when push comes to shove, the ammo will just go to the winner or rot in the basement while the owner rots in jail.

I also am in no way convinced that those who find the current system too hard, worthless, or otherwise unsure - that those same people will suddenly have the strength, assuredness, and internal vision to do anything at all "when it goes to pot".

I have my suspicions about what they will actually do and it will be less than they are doing now.

Don't take that personal, just a general statement of observation.

No offense taken Sir.

When it gets to the point that defenders of Liberty are being rounded up for detainment there is no reason to cooperate. To do so at that point is to rely in the goodwill of those that intend to eliminate you.

I came into this world screaming and covered in the blood of another. I have no problem going out the same way.

All the best to you and yours.

 

[hornadylnl]

hornadylnl,

I am spending my sweat, time & $ in bringing normal Americans around to new experiences and new ways of thinking. My ammo hoard now goes to other people and my rifles get thousands of rounds down range constantly at the hands of others than me.

Each gets a new moment, a new experience, and a new way to think. Sorry you think tyrrany is the DNA of Americans. Personally, I have found it to be liberty but they do not know it yet.

And tossing up our hands and giving up is no way to win. It is only a gauranteed way to lose.

As for who am I fighting for?

My children, my children's children and so on. To secure their future I have to win over their neighbors and their neighbor's children and so on. Without them all I can tell my children to do is take their ball and bat and go home to complain about how bad things are and wait for others to make the future in their absence.

Am I fighting for the republic? Yes. Because it is the best way we can secure all our futures. Secede? Yeah, that worked well before and will work worse now. Guess what? Being an island of one is an easy way to get taken over by many.

Either fight for a better future, or wait for the inevitable end.

You pick.

I want the better future. I just have no faith that the majority of Americans do as well. At least not doing it the right way.

 

[.45 Dave]

I have no intention of giving up but, let's face it, the Republic was lost a long time ago when we popularly moved to a Democracy..or at least that's what we call it. Even the Republicans, despite their name, don't seem to have any idea what the differences are between a Republic and a Democracy. All politicians use the term interchangeably.
America suffers from both historical amnesia and political amnesia.
I fear only a...um trying not to tick off mods...a wiping of the slate clean, will give us any chance to restart the Republic. But even if that happens there is no guarantee we will be able to hold on to it.
As Ben Franklin said, "A Republic...if you can keep it!"

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I want the better future. I just have no faith that the majority of Americans do as well. At least not doing it the right way.

We do not require a majority to win.

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men"


It really turns my stomach to see so many of you throw up your hands and claim that The Republic is lost. Are you all so quick to give up? Are you all so weak in spirit that you have not confidence in yourselves? Are you not grounded in the righteousness of our cause?


You can call me naive and melodramatic, but this is a touchy subject for me. My great grandfather was born a subject. He was born property of a sovereign. The more I learn about what my people came through before they became a free people in a free country, the more set I become in my conviction that I will burn this world down before my family is again owned.

I contend that as long as good men are willing to stand up for her, The Republic stands. As soon as she is abandoned, she falls. If you give up the fight so easy, go away in peace and receive the rest of Adams' blessings. Just do me a favor, do not pretend that by giving up the fight you are being pragmatic, a wise person, shrewd or slinking away to fight another day. Admit are being a lazy coward and I hope those chains chafe.

 

[spitfire51]

I want the better future. I just have no faith that the majority of Americans do as well. At least not doing it the right way.

So is the solution to just give up? Wait for the inevitable collapse and then just hope things turn out ok afterwards? We can do better than that if we're willing to put forth the effort. It won't be easy, and it won't be quick, but it can be done. It may start by changing just one or two people's minds, and then convince them to each bring another couple around, and in time it will lead to a better future for this country without resorting to methods that shall not be named.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You can disagree all you like, and quote all the pull quotes as well. The point remains you're wrong.

You speak of Greece as if it were a country. It wasn't. It was an empire of city states, the most powerful being at Athens. The Greeks at Athens was a democracy. It was also a Republic, as it lacked a monarch or dictator. Few other city states followed the Athenian lead - they had kings, dictators, and other rulers. None of the city states liked each other, and the only came together to trade and war against the Persians.

Rome was part of the Greek empire, a Greek city state that rose to power at the decline of Athens and Roman victory at Corinth. Rome was off and on a Republic, moving between Senate rule and dictatorship by the Ceasars. In fact Rome was a Democratic Monarchy betwoon 750 and 500 BC. Roman citizens elected a monarch who ruled for life.

Being a Republic has not one iota of common ground with being a limited government. I'd like to know where you get that from, in something other than pull quote form. The Founders, who at first wanted to establish a Monarchy with George Washington as King, guaranteed in the Constitution there would be no monarch, nothing more.

I share your sentiment about limited government, but to claim the Republic good and Democracy bad is just plain silly. They are one in the same.

Since making a general statement is apparently not good enough for you, I will remind you that while Athens was the leading force in democratic governments, it tended to have them, several of them over time, punctuated with authoritarian governments of one type or other, and did not have a monopoly on them. Further, I took it for granted that anyone with a clue would understand I was speaking of the Greek culture, not a unified political system. You will notice that whether by direct democratic process or by the often novel means used to prevent corruption, like at one time electing officials by a random drawing among anyone willing to take the office, it never worked over a prolonged period of time, largely due to the lack of stability. Sparta, by contrast, as a monarchy, was usually quite stable albeit at the expense of the standard lack of liberty common to monarchies. Democracies were, are, and always will be inherently self-destructive since they contain no rule of law beyond majority rule. I, however, will not belabor the point since you apparently know more than Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, and company. It must be nice to be so brilliant. It also makes me wonder how the greatest nation in history (at least until it finishes self-destructing) was founded by such dunces who didn't even understand the nature of the government they were creating and had such a wrong-headed idea that it was inherently different from another form of government which they were given to loathe.

You may also for the good of future generations of students wish to advise the professors from whom I took Greek and Roman history that their understanding of history as well as the textbooks are grossly wrong. Your Roman history doesn't even vaguely resemble anything I was taught up until the time of J. Caesar.

 

[churchmouse]

I want the better future. I just have no faith that the majority of Americans do as well. At least not doing it the right way.

Now I have to ask.....You say the right way, please, enlighten us. You give rhetoric with no means. How would you go about changing the course we are on as a nation. A fair question and deserving of a complete answer.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

The question is not one of giving up, but of do you want to save this now perverted version of a "republic". Like trying to resore a house, in this case it is rotted to the foundation.
When the old house is falling apart faster than you can put it back together, new shudders over broken windows isnt the answer.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

The question is not one of giving up, but of do you want to save this now perverted version of a "republic". Like trying to resore a house, in this case it is rotted to the foundation.
When the old house is falling apart faster than you can put it back together, new shudders over broken windows isnt the answer.

If we honestly find ourselves engaged in the complete demolition and scraping to the earth of this old house we will be knee deep in blood when we break ground. We will build our new house in a cemetery that will make Arlington look a small and casual thing and we will tear our hearts out regretting that we did not work harder to save this old house.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The question is not one of giving up, but of do you want to save this now perverted version of a "republic". Like trying to resore a house, in this case it is rotted to the foundation.
When the old house is falling apart faster than you can put it back together, new shudders over broken windows isnt the answer.

If we honestly find ourselves engaged in the complete demolition and scraping to the earth of this old house we will be knee deep in blood when we break ground. We will build our new house in a cemetery that will make Arlington look a small and casual thing and we will tear our hearts out regretting that we did not work harder to save this old house.

Friends, I would say that we are running down a rabbit trail. Which of the two potential directions this goes will most likely be out of our hands. Being prepared for any potential outcome would be a wise approach.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Friends, I would say that we are running down a rabbit trail. Which of the two potential directions this goes will most likely be out of our hands. Being prepared for any potential outcome would be a wise approach.

If you mean that we should either change the direction of the conversation quickly or finish up any deals we might have pending in the classifieds before we get banned you are probably right.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If you mean that we should either change the direction of the conversation quickly or finish up any deals we might have pending in the classifieds before we get banned you are probably right.

Some of that and some of genuinely believing that we are past the point of being able to influence the outcome of our national destiny and responding with the ability to live self-contained for a while if the need be. I really do believe that for all practical purposes we are just along for the ride at this point, which is why I voted not for the stated reasons.

I should specify that I do not advocate lying down and passively letting it happen. At minimum, we should be able to prolong things with some more successful elections, but as has been previously stated, the only real impact is alternately accelerating or decelerating in the wrong direction. Changing to the right direction does not seem very likely.

 

[.45 Dave]

We do not require a majority to win.

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men"


It really turns my stomach to see so many of you throw up your hands and claim that The Republic is lost. Are you all so quick to give up? Are you all so weak in spirit that you have not confidence in yourselves? Are you not grounded in the righteousness of our cause?


You can call me naive and melodramatic, but this is a touchy subject for me. My great grandfather was born a subject. He was born property of a sovereign. The more I learn about what my people came through before they became a free people in a free country, the more set I become in my conviction that I will burn this world down before my family is again owned.

I contend that as long as good men are willing to stand up for her, The Republic stands. As soon as she is abandoned, she falls. If you give up the fight so easy, go away in peace and receive the rest of Adams' blessings. Just do me a favor, do not pretend that by giving up the fight you are being pragmatic, a wise person, shrewd or slinking away to fight another day. Admit are being a lazy coward and I hope those chains chafe.

So is the solution to just give up? Wait for the inevitable collapse and then just hope things turn out ok afterwards? We can do better than that if we're willing to put forth the effort. It won't be easy, and it won't be quick, but it can be done. It may start by changing just one or two people's minds, and then convince them to each bring another couple around, and in time it will lead to a better future for this country without resorting to methods that shall not be named.

I feel properly chastised. I said I would continue to fight in my opening sentence and I will and you both make good points.
This country was founded on the principle that when all else fails, that those "methods which shall not be named" become the only recourse.
Chalk up my first answer and my vote to being tired after a long day at work, if you will, but I will continue to fight to bring this country back to its principles.
Although my answer was based on the difference that has been lost between a Democracy and a Republic, I did vote that I felt like the Republic was lost.

No, I am not going to give up either and I would change my vote if I could. I am in both your debt for reminding me of my duty as an American citizen and as one whose direct ancestor fought alongside George Washington on the field of battle to establish this country.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Since making a general statement is apparently not good enough for you, I will remind you that while Athens was the leading force in democratic governments, it tended to have them, several of them over time, punctuated with authoritarian governments of one type or other, and did not have a monopoly on them. Further, I took it for granted that anyone with a clue would understand I was speaking of the Greek culture, not a unified political system. You will notice that whether by direct democratic process or by the often novel means used to prevent corruption, like at one time electing officials by a random drawing among anyone willing to take the office, it never worked over a prolonged period of time, largely due to the lack of stability. Sparta, by contrast, as a monarchy, was usually quite stable albeit at the expense of the standard lack of liberty common to monarchies. Democracies were, are, and always will be inherently self-destructive since they contain no rule of law beyond majority rule. I, however, will not belabor the point since you apparently know more than Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, and company. It must be nice to be so brilliant. It also makes me wonder how the greatest nation in history (at least until it finishes self-destructing) was founded by such dunces who didn't even understand the nature of the government they were creating and had such a wrong-headed idea that it was inherently different from another form of government which they were given to loathe.

You may also for the good of future generations of students wish to advise the professors from whom I took Greek and Roman history that their understanding of history as well as the textbooks are grossly wrong. Your Roman history doesn't even vaguely resemble anything I was taught up until the time of J. Caesar.

You can ad hom me to death, and you will still be wrong. Why so butthurt? Why not address the glaring deficency in your argument that republic means limited government? Can you point to one definition anywhere tying the words republic and limited government?

You are correct. The Founders were not fans of democracy. The evidence is that initially they wanted to crown George Washington king. They had just revolted against their king; why do you think would they want another? In any event, the implementation of government the Founders used in an attempt to prevent a pure democracy was:

1. The people would vote for the House of Representatives.
2. The various state legislatures would appoint Senators.
3. Electors would be chosen by the states who would in turn vote for the President.
4. The President, with the advise and consent of the Senate, would confer a lifetime appointment to the Constitutional referees to the Supreme Court and all inferior courts.

It is interesting that the Founders did not trust the lower house, that which was elected by the people, with any of the Congressional advise and consent roles, yet gave it alone the power to levy taxes. The President, not popularly elected, with the advice and consent of the Senate, also not popularly elected, administered the government apparatus. Do you see any significance there?

The 17th amendment changed #2 above. Now the entire Congress is chosen by popular vote. It is an amendment to the Constitution, making it no longer the same as the Founders wrote. The 17th will not be undone. One of the Founders checks is gone.

The 12th Amendment changed the way the President and Vice President were elected. Even today, the states have the power to decide by which means the Presidential electors are to be selected. The Founders didn't trust the populace to vote for President or Vice President directly? Why do you think that is?

With the ratification of the 17th Amendment and the practice of states throwing their votes to one candidate there is a pure democracy. That democracy is still a republic, as it lacks a monarch.

So in the end your question is not germane to the Constitution as it exists today. You cannot return to government as established by our Founders without rolling back several of the amendments to the Constitution.

BTW, please tell me which part of my Roman history is incorrect. I fancy myself a Greco-Roman history buff, so if my understanding is incorrect I would like to address it. Please try to do it without a bunch of ad homs. Thanks.

 

[hornadylnl]

Now I have to ask.....You say the right way, please, enlighten us. You give rhetoric with no means. How would you go about changing the course we are on as a nation. A fair question and deserving of a complete answer.

Property rights

The question is not one of giving up, but of do you want to save this now perverted version of a "republic". Like trying to resore a house, in this case it is rotted to the foundation.
When the old house is falling apart faster than you can put it back together, new shudders over broken windows isnt the answer.

This. We can not coexist with cancer.


If your plan for saving America is anybody but Obama, you've failed. Refusing to vote for a candidate like Paul because he can't win makes one "pragmatic". Realizing that the majority of the people don't want liberty makes one a coward.

I'm cured. I'm voting Romney.

 

[Hotdoger]

Property rights


This. We can not coexist with cancer.


If your plan for saving America is anybody but Obama, you've failed. Refusing to vote for a candidate like Paul because he can't win makes one "pragmatic". Realizing that the majority of the people don't want liberty makes one a coward.

I'm cured. I'm voting Romney.

There are inferior personal in every army.

 

[hornadylnl]

I just read the local newspaper this morning.

The county senior center just received "the death nail in the coffin" because a township gave $1500 instead of the suggested "donation" of $15,000.

A small town had a brainstorming session on how to bring people into town to spend money. The host attended a seminar in Colorado so she's fired up on bringing business back. One out of town attendee suggested make an historical downtown something or other so they can apply for grant money. I'd bet there isn't a half a brain of business sense among the 24 in attendence.

The county is getting ready to spend thousands on a contractor just to inspect all county buildings for ADA compliance. If they aren't compliant by the end of the year, they lose federal funds.

This is a rural county and I see stories like this almost every week. We complain about Washington DC but local and state governments make welfare queens look dignified. We complain about spending in Washington but spend millions on schools and athletic facilities that don't contribute a thing to educating children. We apply for grants like its crack cocaine and we need our next hit. You want an extravagant luxury your local taxpayers won't pay for? Apply for a grant and tell the locals they're getting an amazing new _______ and only have to pay pennies on the dollar.

We are regulated or policed for every action we take or don't take. Haven't mowed your yard in two weeks? Don't worry, your neighbor will call code enforcement to report you. The scary words on the Internet? Congress has a bill for that to. Your rifle looks scary? We'll ban it.

Can we as a population ever return to the idea of live and let live? I don't think so. What is the point of sacrificing my blood to save the very people who put us where we are? So we reset back to the constitution and repeal every law passed since. Is Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Harry Reid and the other hundreds of millions of petty tyrants going to see the error of tgeir ways and protect the constitution? Or are they going to go right back to work saving us from ourselves?

 

[J_Wales]

No, I am not going to give up either and I would change my vote if I could. I am in both your debt for reminding me of my duty as an American citizen and as one whose direct ancestor fought alongside George Washington on the field of battle to establish this country.

Washington was a rather strong supporter of the Declaration of Independence. It's a good read. I think I will read a copy of it again today.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You can ad hom me to death, and you will still be wrong. Why so butthurt? Not in the least. It is just frustrating that you are giving away the critical element that separates us from government by WTF ever the mob wants at a given moment.Why not address the glaring deficency in your argument that republic means limited government? Can you point to one definition anywhere tying the words republic and limited government?Once again, in practice the difference is having a defined contract between government and governed (i.e., the Constitution) rather than the whim of 51% at any given moment, democratic election process notwithstanding.

You are correct. The Founders were not fans of democracy. The evidence is that initially they wanted to crown George Washington king. They had just revolted against their king; why do you think would they want another? In any event, the implementation of government the Founders used in an attempt to prevent a pure democracy was:

1. The people would vote for the House of Representatives.
2. The various state legislatures would appoint Senators.
3. Electors would be chosen by the states who would in turn vote for the President.
4. The President, with the advise and consent of the Senate, would confer a lifetime appointment to the Constitutional referees to the Supreme Court and all inferior courts.

It is interesting that the Founders did not trust the lower house, that which was elected by the people, with any of the Congressional advise and consent roles, yet gave it alone the power to levy taxes. That might have something to do with the same sentiment behind the tenth amendment. The President, not popularly elected, with the advice and consent of the Senate, also not popularly elected, administered the government apparatus. Do you see any significance there? Yes. The electoral college resolved the same dilemma dealt with in the legislative branch by having two houses of congress, specifically the larger states got their half of the compromise in the House with a one man, one vote format and the smaller (still considered sovereign) states were protected from getting steamrolled by Ne York, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts by having an equal two votes per state in the senate. The advice and consent role was equal between states such that none were marginalized, like downstate Illinois citizens who are a de facto captive audience to the Peoples Republic of Chicago. Back to the original point, the indirect election of teh president protects the smaller states somewhat by weighting the scales a bit.

The 17th amendment changed #2 above. Now the entire Congress is chosen by popular vote. It is an amendment to the Constitution, making it no longer the same as the Founders wrote. The 17th will not be undone. One of the Founders checks is gone.

The 12th Amendment changed the way the President and Vice President were elected. Even today, the states have the power to decide by which means the Presidential electors are to be selected. The Founders didn't trust the populace to vote for President or Vice President directly? Why do you think that is?Once again, we have an effort to secure liberty without degenerating into mob rule. The direction of the nation is determined by elections but it happens through the buffer of the rule of law according to the Constitution and is removed somewhat to create an element of stability not subject to the whims of any given moment which as most of us are aware can shift suddenly, often, and unpredictably. It also contains elements of dealing, once again, with the ne plus ultra thorny issue of the time, large states versus small states.

With the ratification of the 17th Amendment and the practice of states throwing their votes to one candidate there is a pure democracy. That democracy is still a republic, as it lacks a monarch. No, a pure democracy is absolutely anything goes by 51% vote. In a pure democracy, you have neither rule of law nor any rights, since your freedoms are determined by the mob at any given time.

So in the end your question is not germane to the Constitution as it exists today. You cannot return to government as established by our Founders without rolling back several of the amendments to the Constitution. I would argue that you are straining out gnats while swallowing camels. The twelfth amendment dealt with a problem which needed corrected and was recognized as such largely by the same men who constructed the Constitution in the first place, and the others strike me as tweaks which have a limited effect on the relationship between government and governed, at least by comparison with the present trend of flagrantly disregarding the Constitution as a general method of operation.

BTW, please tell me which part of my Roman history is incorrect. I fancy myself a Greco-Roman history buff, so if my understanding is incorrect I would like to address it. Please try to do it without a bunch of ad homs. Thanks.

I understood you to have come down on a specific explanation of the founding of Rome, which is still a contentious issue, and to have suggested that it rotated between being a republic and an authoritarian regime. A consul could be made tyrant for a year as an emergency power, but this would have to be renewed in the case of a prolonged crisis the Senate deemed worthy of continuation rather than for life (of course until the collapse of republican government). It is interesting to note that only those who our present malcontents would call the 1% were allowed to vote at all, and the Tribune of the Plebes who was the leader appointed to oversee the affairs of the commoners was chosen by the Patricians, but I digress. Limited enfranchisement notwithstanding, Rome functioned quite nicely as a republic for a very long time until its imperialistic ambitions led to internal problems, in turn leading to instability, leading to a wonderful demonstration of the notion that necessity is the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves. The Greeks were a culture, but with the exceptions of the Delian League, Boeotian League, and Second Athenian Sea League could not be said to have been an empire. It is very significant that our founders were influenced not only as often reported by the words of Locke, but also by being well aware of both the successes and failures of the grecko-roman efforts as government with the selected from being much closer to the Roman republic only with much more universal enfranchisement (which has broadened throughout our history without fundamentally changing the nature of our republic)

 

[IndyDave1776]

No, I am not going to give up either and I would change my vote if I could. I am in both your debt for reminding me of my duty as an American citizen and as one whose direct ancestor fought alongside George Washington on the field of battle to establish this country.[/QUOTE]

I would like to join you in this sentiment so far as saying that I have no intention of giving up, I just don't honestly believe that things are going to get better this side of the SHTF. I don't want to see it, but I think I am going to based on my understanding of history. I strongly recommend studying the French revolution of 1789, particularly the events in national government leading up to it. You will find largely the same issues, crises, motives, and personalities forming up a perfect storm that we see coming together now. I would like to see people grasp this and prevent our own repetition of it, but I just don't see it happening, especially when the American people are willing to entrust the nation to the hands of people who declare that one should never let a good crisis go to waste.