Democracy: the God that failed

lewrockwell.com ^ | November 12, 2001 | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[mlocher]

thanks for taking the time to respond. i appreciate the critique. i would like to make a couple of points and ask a question.

here you are attributing the growth of the middle class to democracy rather than to its true source, industrialization

the two go hand in hand. without a free democracy, people will not invest in industrialization. people will not take risks if they cannot reap the rewards.

i think that hoppe is saying that he wants less government interference in the economy-- strongly agree. i think an economic bill of rights is a more practical and a more implementable solution.

can you clarify why you think the bill of rights has not worked? just curious to get your views.

thanks

[Aurelius]

One of the remnants of our Repiblic is the Electoral College which the Democrats of course want to demolish. I don't remember the exact statistics anymore, but I think at the time it was stated that Gore's national "popular majority" was less that his majority in any one of several, major urban centers, Los Angelos and New York in particular. And, invoking the holy name "democracy", democrats think we should all find it self-evident that the winner of the popular vote should be the winner of the election. Yes, urban centers went big for Gore. Ed Rendell really pulled out the vote for him in Philadelphia, Democrat turnout there was better than 100%. In Chicago, Mayor Daley won 100% of the dead vote for Gore. (But ask yourself, should the dead really be voting for our president, after all, what is it to them. Dead Democrats can have FDR as their president, if, indeed as that old poem predicted, he has taken over from Satan.)

[germanshepherd]

...political minoriies are expected to bow to the will of a political majority in circumstances where the founders would have expected minority rights to be protected.

You are completely right. The rights of the minority are to be protected in a democracy.

As far as democracy being treated as "holy" -- that is not the same as being a "god". Democracy is holy in a sense, in that it is a good thing.

[Don Myers]

Bump for later reading.

[philman_36]

How about lending a hand here
I don't know that I would be able to help the man HHH. He completely fails to recognize a republican form of government at the outset and until he does there is no help for him.
I can recommend he read the Federalist #10, the Constitution and a whole bunch of links, but his efforts seem to start and end with the lie of "democracy".
Until he learns the difference between a republican form of government and democracy he will simply continue in postulates and theories.
Blind leading the blind. Don't follow is my advice. You found out by learning, so can he. Seems like he just refuses to learn.
The best I can do is offer illustrations...
A car...a truck. Both are vehicles, but they are vastly different in form and function.
A ship...a boat. You can put a boat on a ship, but you can't put a ship on a boat!
'Bout the best I can do on short notice, and I'll go no further today.

[philman_36]

LGE...WOOHOO has it going on with the link provided. All anyone can do is say, "Find out for yourself."

[Aurelius]

"can you clarify why you think the bill of rights has not worked?"

One instance - the Second Amendment. One of my great heroes is H. L. Mencken. In his book, Notes on Democracy - written in 1925, when you still could have bought a Thompson submachine gun in your local hardware store, Mencken declared the Second Amendment essentially a dead letter.

If the principle of a Republic had been upheld it would never have been suggested that a referendum could be held in which your fellow citizens could vote away your firearms rights. Strictly speaking, of course, protection against local actions of that nature should come from the State constitutions rather than the federal one. As for the notorious federal law of 1935, I never saw a comment by Mencken on that. The point is that the Liberals at that time hadn't yet invented the doctrine that the Second Amendment doesn't say what it says. So the law doesn't deny the right to possession of any type of firearm, it merely places a tax on the exercise of that right. I am sure Mencken would not have approved.

[Aurelius]

Remember that the violations that led to the sieges at both Ruby Ridge and Waco. though characterized in the media as "firearms violations" were, in fact, tax violations - under the 1935 act.

[mlocher]

thanks. i understand your point. i also agree with your point that the states should have some juisdiction instead of the feds. if you limit taxes then you limit what the irs and gov't can do.

[Aurelius]

"Democracy is holy in a sense, in that it is a good thing."

Problem 1. As I said before, its "holiness" is often used to limit debate. As in the example of the Democrat claim that Al Gore should be president because he won the popular vote.

2. Like "Civilization", "Democracy" has two sides, a dark and a bright. When people say "Civilization" they think of great art, music, literature, science - which are indeed products of "Civilization". They think also of public safety, health protection, protection against the vagaries of fate, which are perhaps somewhat more illusory aspects of civilization. Om the dark side of civilization is: war and syphillus, as Edward Abbey would say, contagious disease in general, and, above all, TAXES. - The fundamental character of civilization, the forced division of society into a productive class that labors (redundancy intentional) and a nonproductive class that lives off of that labor.

I won't hold forth similarly on the dark side of democracy but simply say: from the point of view of the governing class, democracy is the cheapest means of oppression.

[Aurelius]

Democracy is the cheapest means of oppression.

The Soviet Union, of course, called themselves a democracy. But they didn't properly understand the notion. They thought they had to maintain the enormous KGB apparatus and the gulag system to keep the people in fear. Their clumsy efforts made it evident to their people that they weren't free. But if you can instead delude people into believing that they may choose their jailors (as de Toqueville said, although you would not want them to think of their jailors as jailors), then they can be controlled much more cheaply. They will be much more productive into the bargain under a system where they have the illusion of free enterprize.

[WOOHOO]

*whew* for a minute I thought you meant "erection".

[WOOHOO]

FEDERALIST PAPERS Federalist No. 10 The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection From the New York Packet. Friday, November 23, 1787.

Author: James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a wellconstructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such 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. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

PUBLIUS.

---

---

| Search Federalist Papers | Browse Federalist Papers | THOMAS Home Page |

Last Update Mon May 20 1996 </base ref=http://www.freerepublic.com>

[VOA]

Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Good job Hans-Hermann!
You figured out what a bunch of dead white Eurocentric males figured out as they
were founding the USA.
That's why they didn't found a democracy.
And they established our Representative Republic.

Of course, anyone who had their ears cleared of wax during the Clinton impeachment
debate heard this factoid mentioned a few times.

[Aurelius]

Usually I don't correct minor mispelling errors, but in that case thought it essential. Now that the Australians have effectively been disarmed, one has to wonder how confused their sex lives may become, that is, if you believe all that malarkey relating liking for guns to some sort of phallic symbolism. So far as I'm concerned that is no less a bunch of bs than any of the other doctrines of the mental health profession. In fact the only point of this comment is to gave a trashing to that abominable profession.

These people are no small threat to you, even if you have the good sense never to consult one of them. They have bombarded today's NYT with letters trying to get "equal treatment" for medical illness under medicare and medicaid. Miraculously, so far Congress has held out. If they get what they want, we will have more mentally screwed-up people, and medicare and medicaid will crash a lot sooner than they would otherwise.

Guess I got a bit off-thread.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

Democracy is the cheapest means of oppression.

The Soviet Union, of course, called themselves a democracy. But they didn't properly understand the notion. They thought they had to maintain the enormous KGB apparatus and the gulag system to keep the people in fear. Their clumsy efforts made it evident to their people that they weren't free. But if you can instead delude people into believing that they may choose their jailors (as de Toqueville said, although you would not want them to think of their jailors as jailors), then they can be controlled much more cheaply. They will be much more productive into the bargain under a system where they have the illusion of free enterprize.

There is such a thing as totalitarian democracy, or soft totalitarianism, as some have called it. This became readily apparent to me when as a history student I began reading 19th century and early 20th century literature and political discussions in various popular journals and in more elevated theoretical magazines. The comparison between what was permissable for public discussion then and now is quite astounding.

We really do not have as much freedom of thought now as we like to kid ourselves - if you really want to think "outside the box" in public today, you are going to have to do it in very obscure corners of the internet under an assumed name, in order to avoid the swarms of self-appointed censors who believe it is their democratic duty to hammer-down all elitist upsticking nails until they are level with all the rest of the nails. In other words, there is a set of conformist assumptions we are expected to adhere to, and the penalties for deviating from them in public are getting more severe.

"Soft totalitarianism" means everyone is everyone else's policeman, prosecutor, judge, jury, and jailer. We have not yet gotten to the point where simply being accused of being "anti-American" will get one fired from one's job or kicked out of university, but we are getting close. God help you if you are on one of the Fed's lists if you are planning on an airline trip anytime soon, for instance.

The problem is that most people are sheep, and are quite comfortable with sham "democracy" vote-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils. Most people think they are intelligent and free-thinking, without ever really ever challenging themselves or their own beliefs to see what it is they really are and what it is they really believe. It is so much easier to let others tell one what one is and what one believes; today one tends to rely on the TV for such "guidance".

And that points to another problem: since most people gain their sense of reality from TV and other mass media, the real controllers of the state in a "democracy" is not "the people" but rather those who control the media. If I can control what you see on TV, then I really don't need to worry about who wins what election or which party happens to hold a majority in Congress. I can pretty much dictate the agenda to whoever is "elected".

Shortly before the working man got the franchise in Britain, an observer (whose name escapes me) remarked that "the people are now our masters, therefor we must educate the people"....thus leading to the system of mandatory, "free", public education which was already common in America but not yet in Britain. It was understood that if you could mold young minds, you could pretty much regiment them into the "democratic" way of thinking long before they had a chance to "vote".

With public indoctrination aka "education" and a system of mass-entertainment via TV and other media run by people with relatively similar views and interests, you get a "democracy" where any kind of honest public debate is cut off and curtailed, and thus many things are driven underground and dismissed as "extremist" which should be matters for honest public discussion if one is to have anything resembling either a republic or a true democracy.

If one's working definition of a democracy is honest public debate of public policy and informed voting based on same, without the presence of private interests capable of stifling this debate, then clearly we are not living in a real democracy. If democracy, however, is any system of government which derives its legitimacy from "the will of the people", then we are living in a democracy, but so too were the people in Nazi Germany or the USSR.

Mere voting for two or more political parties does not a democracy make.

I suggest there are two very close, overlapping, definitions of democracy, which nevertheless remain seperate: the idealist definition of democracy where people really do debate public policy honestly and openly without being swayed by special interest bribes and without being manipulated by TV imagery...and, on the other, the practical definition of democracy as the mere consent of the governed which gives carte blanche to the state the power to do whatever it desires, provided it can somehow convince enough people that it is acting as the true representative of the "will of the people/nation".

In practice, based on history, we must conclude that one must move quickly from the first, idealist, definition of democracy, to the second, more realistic, more practical definition of democracy. There is perhaps a very large grey area of transition between the two, but we are clearly at the end of the grey spectrum and moving into "definition two" territory.

[Entelechy]

Entelechy: here you are attributing the growth of the middle class to democracy rather than to its true source, industrialization

mlocher: the two go hand in hand. without a free democracy, people will not invest in industrialization. people will not take risks if they cannot reap the rewards.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I fail to see how democracy (a means of choosing political leaders) produces necessary pre-conditions for risk taking and capital creation. The more important pre-condition would seem to be property rights. Risk taking occurs when one is secure in one's posessions.

can you clarify why you think the bill of rights has not worked? just curious to get your views.

Well, let's see:

1st Amendment: anti-establishment clause has become an anti-religious bludgeon.

2nd Amendment: Meaning distorted into irrelevancy.

3rd Amendment: Violated in spirit by drug war posse comitatus exceptions.

4th Amendment: No-knock raids, secret tribunals handing out warrants, "probable cause" extended to the point where the exception is now the rule.

5th Amendment: Environmental wetlands laws, eminent domain, business regulation in general

6th Amendment: jury "selection" that insures that you will be tried not by your peers but by the moronic and the senile, moving of trials out of the jurisdiction where the crime was committed because of "too much media coverage"

7th Amendment: Numerous courts are jury-less today. Most importantly, tax courts have no juries. Furthermore, all courts are essentially jury-less due to the jailing of jurors who engage in "nullification" or otherwise fail to heed the judges "instructions" -- themselves a seventh amendment violation in many cases.

8th Amendment: mandatory minimum sentencing, regulatory fines

9th Amendment: You name it

10th Amendment: Social security, medicare, farm subsidies, corporate welfare, etc . . .

A bill of rights only restrains a democratic government so long as the people understand it. Since our people have lost their understanding of liberty, no piece of paper will protect them from demagogues.

[Aurelius]

"Good job Hans-Hermann!

You figured out what a bunch of dead white Eurocentric males figured out as they were founding the USA.

That's why they dibn't found a democracy.

And they established our Representative Republic.

Of cours, anyone who had their ears cleared of wax during the Clinton impeachment debate heard this factoid mentioned a few times."

Dear Voice out of @r$$hole:

Very dumb post. Don't you realize that with today's methods of privacy invasion, your employer probably knows that you frequent freerepublic.com, and, since you have chosen such a revealing screen name, he probably knows that too. Once he reads this post and realizes that your reading comprehension skills are marginally first grade level,, he might very possibly fire you. You should have thought more before you posted, but of coures, if you swere capable of that, you would have been capable of producing a more intelligent opinion.

[Twodees]

Actually, if you read the US Constitution, you'll find that the word "democracy" doesn't appear once in the text. The habit of referring to our form of government as a democracy was started by Marxists. Marx said that democracy was the necessary precursor to socialism. Socialism is of course the necessary precursor for communism.

Our electoral process wasn't designed to be democratic, either. The 15th amendment started the process toward democratization of the electoral process. The 17th amendment furthered it, and now there's a push to abolish the electoral college. Democracy is a very bad form of government, and it's one which was generally despised among the framers of the Constitution. Going by the text of that document, there is no "constitutional democracy" in the US.

[Twodees]

The GOP is more likely to be a communist front group than LRC or Mises.org. To anyone who knows what this country was founded on, the GOP is definitely the anti-American organization among the three I've mentioned here.