Skip to comments.Terrific Video: Are We Sliding from a Republic into Despotism?
Posted on 04/19/2009 2:28:59 PM PDT by Bill Dupray
It gives a nice little overview of Communism, Fascism, Anarchy, and Democracy and why our Founding Fathers tried as hard as they could to avoid all of them, including, most importantly, Democracy, when setting up our Republic. By the end, the slippery slope of Dictatorship of the Elite, on which we stand, seems to be getting steeper and more slippery.
H/T to FReeper wombtotomb
(Excerpt) Read more at patriotroom.com ...
of course we are.
Too late. We went over the cliff with W. Wilson. We just didn’t realize it until now.
Princeton Professor with life long mental problems. Ran on keeping us out of WWI, fail, then ending the war to end all wars, fail.
Probably our fist leftist policy wonk elitist.
A republic is any government without a monarch. The USSR, NAZI Germany, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia were republics, while Churchill’s Britain was a monarchy.
Democracy is the rule of a majority of the people. France during the 1793-4 reign of terror was both a democracy and a republic, and also a really terrible place.
What is most valuable in our political tradition is the limitation of government power over the individual. We inherited this from Magna Carta and the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and our founders codified it in our constitution. Unfortunately there is no simple word or phrase to name this system of ordered liberty. We often call ourselves a constitutional republic. But what is really important is the contents of our constitution (and how well they are honored), and not merely the fact that we have one. The USSR and NAZI Germany were also constitutional republics.
Choose this day how you will serve; Will you serve unwillingly and at the biding of others wearing the yoke of socialism or will hold true to the course of our forefathers’ standing tall and serving freely? As for me I choose to SERVE THE REPUBLIC!
I can't agree with your assertions. Nazi Germany was a fascist dictatorship - far from the precepts of a republic which fundamentally guarantees individual liberty vs the power of collective institutions.
Rome was a democratic republic for some time, until non-stakeholders were given the same rights as the tax-paying citizens. Greece was a democracy, which equates to "mob rule" or majority rule, vs individual, inalienable rights.
Collectivist societies are diametrically opposed to constitutional republics. Those societies always collapse under the weight of the majority over the minority.
well watched the first minute- can’t get by the libertarian hogwash of left is total gov and then they throw in Popes and there we go: another protestant swipe.
Right is not lack of gov- that is anarchy and ultra-left.
Natural conscience uninformed bu THE ONE CHURCH OF GOD will never survive.
Rest of vid is probably fine.
I downloaded and will watch inside a month I guess.
Libertarians will be the death of conservatism which is:
CONSERVING THE WISDOM PASSED BY OUR FATHERS. No pops down the line advocated NO GOV u lamebrains.
Watch out for the freakin’ masons u twits.
“I can’t agree with your assertions. Nazi Germany was a fascist dictatorship - far from the precepts of a republic which fundamentally guarantees individual liberty”
So? NAZI Germany was a constitutional republic dedicated to murdering Jews and enslaving the rest of the world.
Once again, a republic is any government without a monarch. Remember that Saddam Hussien called his best troops “The Republican Guard”.
George Orwell is rightly famous for pointing out that corruption of political language is one of the tools of despots. Obama will rightly claim to head a democratic republic, as he does his best to destroy the individual liberty that is our really precious heritage. We need to be very clear. A republic is not enough. Democracy is not enough. A constitution is not enough (especially if it isn’t enforced). We need individual liberty under the rule of law, with an incorruptible legal system to make it a reality. Nothing less will suffice.
"George Orwell is rightly famous for pointing out that corruption of political language is one of the tools of despots."
And I would offer your statement here as a perfect example of a despot corrupting political language:
"Remember that Saddam Hussien called his best troops "The Republican Guard"".
Just because a despot named Hussien used "Republican" to label his henchmen - it does not make his country a Republic.
To define a Republic as "any government without a monarch" is like saying "a human is a mammal, therefore, all mammals are humans". You are leaving out important aspects of a true republic that differentiates it from other "non-monarchy" forms of government.
“Just because a despot named Hussien used “Republican” to label his henchmen - it does not make his country a Republic.”
It certainly wasn’t a democratic republic, but it was a republic. The preceding Iraqi Kingdom ruled over by King Faisal II was of course a monarchy. In my opinion Saddam Hussien had no deceptive purpose in calling his best troops “The Republican Guard”. That’s what he thought they were.
In this matter the evil Saddam was the liguistic traditionalist, while you and many like-minded Freepers are the Orwellian Newspeakers, trying with the best of intentions to force the word “republic” to mean all the fine things you would like it to mean.
Lots of luck!
What "fine things" regarding the meaning of republic are you imputing to me, in order to boldly convict me as an "Orwellian Newspeakers"?
Let me make sure I've got this straight:
1) I challenged your simplistic definition of a republic as a "non-monarchy" and you replied with nothing authoritative
2) I pointed out your inconsistency of quoting Orwell, who warned of despots that corrupt political language to obfuscate the truth - then in the same post to support your argument, you use the exact type of despot Orwell warned about - Saddam - widely known to manipulate the truth
3) I purposely left my definition of republic short and somewhat vague, but out of this you are able to distill the fact that I've corrupted the purity of the word republic and have re-crafted its meaning in some dramatic Orwellian fashion
It appears "Omniscient" must be your strong suite... so no need to bid "Lot's of luck!" to you... go forth upholder of the purity of "republic".
You are a scholar... I give a great big Obama bow to you...
Now that the great " liguistic (sic) traditionalist" Saddam is gone, it is now up to you, my friend, to uphold the purity of dialect against so many of us "Orwellian Newspeakers" Freepers.
And thanks for the link to the dictionary. I never would have thought of looking there to pull in some more material to corrupt our political language!
I would think the answer would be one of two:
A. Anarchists are a confused group of what will be an Oligarchy.
B. The video is wrong which would leave the question what is the extreme right?
If 'A' is the answer then what is the Ayn Rand Libertarian (by definition not the political party)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.