Statement by Jim Robinson Regarding the State of our Free Republic

October 20, 2003 | Jim Robinson

[VRWCmember]

Thank you for the references to James Madison's works which distinguish a republic from a democracy and further explain why our country was established as the former and not the latter.

[VRWCmember]

IMHO, simply supporting Republicans instead of Democrats is akin to traveling the road to socialism at 35 MPH instead of 55 MPH.

If republicans travel toward socialism at 35MPH and democrats travel at 55MPH, what exactly are you advocating with your screen name of GO65, the Green Party?

[GO65]

If republicans travel toward socialism at 35MPH and democrats travel at 55MPH, what exactly are you advocating with your screen name of GO65, the Green Party?

I'm not advocating any party - I'm advocating conserative principles. I'd take John Breaux over Olympia Snowe, just as I'd take Tom DeLay over Barney Frank.

[Free_at_last_-2001]

I see the Democrat Party as domestic enemy number one of the Constitution and therefor it is my sworn enemy. And, in my eyes, anyone who helps to elect members of the Democrat party are aiding and abetting the enemy.

- Agree 100%

[VRWCmember]

You will not find a single reference to "democracy" in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or any other important document of our nation's founding.

Thanks for the Federalist references. I should have worded my statement: "You will not find a single reference to our country being founded as a 'democracy' in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, ..."

[VRWCmember]

OK. It was a bit of a joke -- a play on your screen name along with your comment about the speeds of the GOP and dems.

[michigander]

No problem.
I know what you were trying to say.
I wasn't trying to prove you were wrong. Just thought the links would help.

[wimpycat]

The point is personal conduct, and each is the abiter of their own.

I'm glad you said that, because...

Therefore, each of us as individuals has it in our power, whatever the context, to voluntarily avoid potential excesses of mobs and majorities by not conducting ourselves in that manner...

I personally don't see the "potential excesses of mobs and majorities" happening at FR. And if Jim doesn't see it, and since each is the arbiter of his own personal conduct, like you just said, then it is a moot point.

[Allegra]

BUMP to a great statement from a proud member of the Houston FR Chapter!

[ThomasMore]

Well said Jim. Thank you for continuing FreeRepublic and making it a place where we can vent and also come together on common ground.

As for my political position; it pretty much reflects your own. As for morals, the Democratic Party is the most depraved group of individuals ever to come along. Their stand on abortion alone is intrinsically evil and needs to be halted and reversed.

God bless you and the crew at FR.

TM

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your excellent post!

JimRob is absolutely right: The Left does want to destroy the Constitution. It is a crystalization of a theory of man and of values that the Left despises. Unfortunately, I think that Plato was right: even the "best constitution" cannot suffice to maintain a decent, just social order for a people who hold virtue in contempt.

So true. So true.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Re: Lincoln - "I guess he was just messing with the Constitution like toilet paper..."

Ummm, actually, now that you mention it...

[Madame de Winter]

What upsets me is aguments that say it is either, or. Democracy vs. Republic. We live in a Constitutional Repulic that is a democracy. Clear. I mean do you really think the system is broken? That you are being oppressed by the tyrrannical minority? Are people that agree with, good, and people who disagree, evil? By your standards, who assert democracy as an inherent good in itself, who are destroying the notions of rights and liberty, and aiding the progression toward our inevitable doom Am I evil?

[tpaine]

Sabertooth wrote:
In a republic, we endeavor to avoid tyrannies of majorities. Yet, while the freedom of association allows folks to gather in groups whose members may not reflect republicanism, subjecting themselves to the whims and rants of majorities if they choose to do so, is there a conflict if members of a group whose purpose is republicanism don't cultivate republican behavior personally?

wimpycat wrote:
I hardly think comparing FR to the U.S. government would be an accurate analogy. FR is a benevolent dictatorship.
The leadership is unelected, the leadership owns all the property.
In exchange, we get to do pretty much what we want, and if the decisions made are somewhat arbitrary, well, then those are the breaks.
It's not like Cuba, where we can't leave if we want...we're even allowed to go back and forth between FR and certain "unfriendly" countries, with no repercussions. And some of us take full advantage of it. Not me, though.

...is there a conflict if members of a group whose purpose is republicanism don't cultivate republican behavior personally?"

No. There isn't. For one thing, who decides if someone else's personal behavior is "republican"? Is there a "Board of Arbiters of Republican Behavior" somewhere?
And what sort of personal behavior are you considering?
Is there a "republican" way to act in a restaurant, in a car, at family reunions, at work, etc? Or are you merely trying to go around your elbow to get to your thumb and say that Jim Robinson should conduct his website like a republican form of government?
What point ARE you trying to make? Show your cards instead of pussyfooting around

Sabertooth wrote:
The point is personal conduct, and each is the abiter of their own.
No board of review necessary, no compulsion. Wouldn't really be republican, then, would it?
At it's most basic level, this country is a democratic republic to give each a voice, while avoiding the potential for a tyranny of a majority. Simple democracy lends itself to mob rule when swept up with the passions of the moment.
Therefore, each of us as individuals has it in our power, whatever the context, to voluntarily avoid potential excesses of mobs and majorities by not conducting ourselves in that manner, and calling others on it when they do so. That seems like appropriately republican behavior to me.
How about you?

_______________________________

Well said Saber..
Excellent exchange between you & wimpy that is typical of the dichotomy on FR, a site that loudly proclaims itself for liberty, but then asserts that a website can't be moderated under republican principles of personal conduct.
How will we know unless we give it a try?

[OWK]

I mean do you really think the system is broken?

Potentially beyond repair.. yes.

That you are being oppressed by the tyrrannical minority?

Not a tyrannical minority

A tyranical majority.

Who think it is their business to tell me what firearms I may own...

Or that I may not own them at all..

Or how many gallons my toilet must flush.

Or what I may eat and drink.

Or that I may not buy antibiotics without their permission.

Or who I must associate with, whether I choose to or not.

They rob me to pay for the education of people I've never heard of.

And to pay for "arts and humanities"

And to pay for pork projects in Podunk.

And to pay for fat lazy people to recieve a government check.

And to promote ideas I oppose.

And to buy substitute drugs for drug addicts.

And to provide housing for the irresponsible.

And to give people credit cards to buy free food.

And to operate "public" television and radio.

And to snoop on my internet communications.

And to confiscate toenail clippers at airports.

Your precious democracy votes to steal what is mine, and to give it to others who have not earned. It votes to subjugate and control my dominion over my own otherwise peaceful life. It is evil that is done by your precious majority. And all the while, "democracy" is bandied about as if it represents some precious and unassailable good, in and of itself.

Are people that agree with, good, and people who disagree, evil?

People that steal from me are evil (even if they do so under cover of democracy).

People that violate my rights are evil (even if they do so under cover of democracy).

Am I evil?

You tell me.

[Madame de Winter]

Consensus and compromise, are part of checks and balances. There is no capitualation in compromise. When you argue whith your spouse or family member do you try and destroy their position? Or do listen and reach an understanding? Being right and winning can sometimes be a pyrrhic victory (back to the Romans).

We are a republic and a democracy! And yes it is hair-splitting semantics.Way back when it might not have started out that way. Land owners, slaves and women can vote now. Universal sufferage and all that.

Want to go back to like it was before?

I always find it interesting the the names people use when posting: Madame de Winter serves the Cardinal, whom do you serve???

[tpaine]

betty boop:
JimRob is absolutely right: The Left does want to destroy the Constitution. It is a crystalization of a theory of
man and of values that the Left despises. Unfortunately, I think that Plato was right: even the "best constitution" cannot suffice to maintain a decent, just social order for a people who hold virtue in contempt.

_____________________________________


So true. So true.
1,091 -AG-

---

In effect, the belief that we ~must~ control mans "virtue" is one if the prime reasons that even the "best constitution" cannot suffice to maintain a decent, just social order.

History shows that mandating virtue through prohibitionary laws foster contempt for social order.

[Madame de Winter]

I gotta' agree with take that the system is broken?

You conservative anarchist devil you. It's cute that you you think this all because of government. I think your beef should be with the IRS. They steal your money.

Tax Revolt yeah!!!

I am not evil; just argumentitive and have a slight kink about pushing other people's buttons...

[Jim Robinson]

Hey, when the left starts compromising in the direction of more freedom rather than less, and a return to the constitutionally limited government as established by our Founders then I'm all for it and we'll begin making some progress. But as long as compromise leads to even more government evil doing and more government abuse or means giving up even more of our liberty, our freedoms, our traditional American way of life, even our God, then I say not only no, but hell no!

[mrsmith]

"We are a republic and a democracy! And yes it is hair-splitting semantics."

Yes.
Yes.

We ARE beyond dispute a representative democracy.

But there are things a simple majority cannot do in our system- a supermajority can, of course, do anything.

A simple majority cannot retain (or "grant" to use the disgusting common phrasing) new rights to the people, nor can a simple majority grant new powers to the government.
Both have to be done by a supermajority through amendment of the Constitution.

This requirement for a supermajority is neccessary for the Constitution to survive
.... and that is why we emphasize here the 'republican" nature of our government.