Topic: Strong democracy or strong constitution ? (Read 3457 times)
Your "posits" are expressed in such a way that I don't understand for sure what they are, or for sure if one even exists.
(What is being said is that pseudo-anarchy may be imposed via authoritarianism.)
A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.
A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.
What does "pre-ential" mean? And how exactly do you imagine that could happen? Your idea of "authoritarian imposition of anarchy" sounds like Year Zero (the Cambodian authoritarian imposition of communism).
Over the years, government (people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves), have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.
And before there was common law there was Natural Law, which logically describes your true freedoms. BTW, I fixed your misconception about what government is by taking the liberty of adding a parenthesis.
2. Within authoritarian anarchism, governed are not permitted that "heat sink" of government, but are subject to a "heat pump" of anti-government.
So, what governmental system, considering that some people are evil, is better than a common law government in the long run?
Well, it is kinda fun playing. Aren't you homosapien?
(What is being said is that pseudo-anarchy may be imposed via authoritarianism.)
A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.
A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.
What does "pre-ential" mean? And how exactly do you imagine that could happen? Your idea of "authoritarian imposition of anarchy" sounds like Year Zero (the Cambodian authoritarian imposition of communism).
Over the years, government (people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves), have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.
And before there was common law there was Natural Law, which logically describes your true freedoms. BTW, I fixed your misconception about what government is by taking the liberty of adding a parenthesis.
2. Within authoritarian anarchism, governed are not permitted that "heat sink" of government, but are subject to a "heat pump" of anti-government.
So, what governmental system, considering that some people are evil, is better than a common law government in the long run?
Well, it is kinda fun playing. Aren't you homosapien?
(What is being said is that pseudo-anarchy may be imposed via authoritarianism.)
A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.
A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.
What does "pre-ential" mean? And how exactly do you imagine that could happen? Your idea of "authoritarian imposition of anarchy" sounds like Year Zero (the Cambodian authoritarian imposition of communism).
Over the years, government (people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves), have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.
And before there was common law there was Natural Law, which logically describes your true freedoms. BTW, I fixed your misconception about what government is by taking the liberty of adding a parenthesis.
2. Within authoritarian anarchism, governed are not permitted that "heat sink" of government, but are subject to a "heat pump" of anti-government.
So, what governmental system, considering that some people are evil, is better than a common law government in the long run?
(What is being said is that pseudo-anarchy may be imposed via authoritarianism.)
A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.
A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.
What does "pre-ential" mean? And how exactly do you imagine that could happen? Your idea of "authoritarian imposition of anarchy" sounds like Year Zero (the Cambodian authoritarian imposition of communism).
Over the years, government (people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves), have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.
And before there was common law there was Natural Law, which logically describes your true freedoms. BTW, I fixed your misconception about what government is by taking the liberty of adding a parenthesis.
2. Within authoritarian anarchism, governed are not permitted that "heat sink" of government, but are subject to a "heat pump" of anti-government.
So, what governmental system, considering that some people are evil, is better than a common law government in the long run?
(What is being said is that pseudo-anarchy may be imposed via authoritarianism.)
A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.
A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.
What does "pre-ential" mean? And how exactly do you imagine that could happen? Your idea of "authoritarian imposition of anarchy" sounds like Year Zero (the Cambodian authoritarian imposition of communism).
Over the years, government (people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves), have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.
And before there was common law there was Natural Law, which logically describes your true freedoms. BTW, I fixed your misconception about what government is by taking the liberty of adding a parenthesis.
2. Within authoritarian anarchism, governed are not permitted that "heat sink" of government, but are subject to a "heat pump" of anti-government.
(What is being said is that pseudo-anarchy may be imposed via authoritarianism.)
A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.
A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.
What does "pre-ential" mean? And how exactly do you imagine that could happen? Your idea of "authoritarian imposition of anarchy" sounds like Year Zero (the Cambodian authoritarian imposition of communism).
Over the years, government (people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves), have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.
And before there was common law there was Natural Law, which logically describes your true freedoms. BTW, I fixed your misconception about what government is by taking the liberty of adding a parenthesis.
If you read Blackstone, you will find that natural law is almost the same as common law. Common law is simply natural law with the breaking of it thrown in to correct it among people. The only important thing that natural law has, which common law may not have, is the recognition of the existence of God.
(What is being said is that pseudo-anarchy may be imposed via authoritarianism.)
A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.
A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.
What does "pre-ential" mean? And how exactly do you imagine that could happen? Your idea of "authoritarian imposition of anarchy" sounds like Year Zero (the Cambodian authoritarian imposition of communism).
Over the years, government (people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves), have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.
And before there was common law there was Natural Law, which logically describes your true freedoms. BTW, I fixed your misconception about what government is by taking the liberty of adding a parenthesis.
"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."
Authoritarian anarchism teaches men, by its authoritarianism, how to dwell among without will of state.
"... dwell among without ..."
Dwell among what?
At a time when there were only a few people in the world, the only thing that held them together was love.
Sooner or later among people there is going to be the thief. Some people simply do this. It is a standard fact of life.
If the thief steals from you, you can protect yourself, man to man, from the thief.
If the thief is smart, he will get together with a few others of like mind, and you will not be able to stop them all.
If you are smart, you will get together with a few others of like mind. Then you will be able to stop the thieves.
"... without will of state," is a really neat idea. But it never lasts. Best is a state that upholds "harm no one, and don't damage someone's property" by making it a non-state accusing when a state official does the harm or damage.
In other words, the state officials act in their official capacity when prosecuting harm or damage acts, but if THEY do harm or damage, even in their official capacity, they are prosecuted in their non-official capacity, by others who are in THEIR official capacity.
This is the basic thing that the U.S. Constitution provides for, along with protecting the nation from foreign aggression. The fact that the people have allowed themselves to become so extremely stupid about this, that they don't use what they have, but rather often seek to overthrow the best form of government out there, shows just how strong the Constitution is. Even government can't destroy it, but, rather, is required to destroy all destroyers of this Constitutional government, be they from without or within.
This is the exact thing. Strong as the constitutional government of the USA is, that was one of its major flaws. Around civil war times, the military was ordered to force people into the public school system. There is no way a law can force public school operations. But the military could do it in a time of turmoil. That's why private schools are an option.
In other words, there should have been some strong school provision built into the Constitution that made common law learning a requirement for the people.
Over the years, government people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves, have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.
The common law is not gone. The people are waking up. This is part of the reason that we see a build-up of armament among law enforcement in the States. I expect that government will try to forcibly push common law back under the covers somehow.
You have that right, and not only because I acknowledge it.
"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."
Authoritarian anarchism teaches men, by its authoritarianism, how to dwell among without will of state.
"... dwell among without ..."
Dwell among what?
At a time when there were only a few people in the world, the only thing that held them together was love.
Sooner or later among people there is going to be the thief. Some people simply do this. It is a standard fact of life.
If the thief steals from you, you can protect yourself, man to man, from the thief.
If the thief is smart, he will get together with a few others of like mind, and you will not be able to stop them all.
If you are smart, you will get together with a few others of like mind. Then you will be able to stop the thieves.
"... without will of state," is a really neat idea. But it never lasts. Best is a state that upholds "harm no one, and don't damage someone's property" by making it a non-state accusing when a state official does the harm or damage.
In other words, the state officials act in their official capacity when prosecuting harm or damage acts, but if THEY do harm or damage, even in their official capacity, they are prosecuted in their non-official capacity, by others who are in THEIR official capacity.
This is the basic thing that the U.S. Constitution provides for, along with protecting the nation from foreign aggression. The fact that the people have allowed themselves to become so extremely stupid about this, that they don't use what they have, but rather often seek to overthrow the best form of government out there, shows just how strong the Constitution is. Even government can't destroy it, but, rather, is required to destroy all destroyers of this Constitutional government, be they from without or within.
This is the exact thing. Strong as the constitutional government of the USA is, that was one of its major flaws. Around civil war times, the military was ordered to force people into the public school system. There is no way a law can force public school operations. But the military could do it in a time of turmoil. That's why private schools are an option.
In other words, there should have been some strong school provision built into the Constitution that made common law learning a requirement for the people.
Over the years, government people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves, have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.
The common law is not gone. The people are waking up. This is part of the reason that we see a build-up of armament among law enforcement in the States. I expect that government will try to forcibly push common law back under the covers somehow.
"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."
Authoritarian anarchism teaches men, by its authoritarianism, how to dwell among without will of state.
"... dwell among without ..."
Dwell among what?
At a time when there were only a few people in the world, the only thing that held them together was love.
Sooner or later among people there is going to be the thief. Some people simply do this. It is a standard fact of life.
If the thief steals from you, you can protect yourself, man to man, from the thief.
If the thief is smart, he will get together with a few others of like mind, and you will not be able to stop them all.
If you are smart, you will get together with a few others of like mind. Then you will be able to stop the thieves.
"... without will of state," is a really neat idea. But it never lasts. Best is a state that upholds "harm no one, and don't damage someone's property" by making it a non-state accusing when a state official does the harm or damage.
In other words, the state officials act in their official capacity when prosecuting harm or damage acts, but if THEY do harm or damage, even in their official capacity, they are prosecuted in their non-official capacity, by others who are in THEIR official capacity.
This is the basic thing that the U.S. Constitution provides for, along with protecting the nation from foreign aggression. The fact that the people have allowed themselves to become so extremely stupid about this, that they don't use what they have, but rather often seek to overthrow the best form of government out there, shows just how strong the Constitution is. Even government can't destroy it, but, rather, is required to destroy all destroyers of this Constitutional government, be they from without or within.
This is the exact thing. Strong as the constitutional government of the USA is, that was one of its major flaws. Around civil war times, the military was ordered to force people into the public school system. There is no way a law can force public school operations. But the military could do it in a time of turmoil. That's why private schools are an option.
In other words, there should have been some strong school provision built into the Constitution that made common law learning a requirement for the people.
Over the years, government people who have an agenda of taking control and making everyone slaves, have removed the teachings about common law from the schools. Civics class became Government class. We aren't taught about our true freedoms anymore... freedoms from almost anything that the government wants to force us to do... even driving the speed limits.
The common law is not gone. The people are waking up. This is part of the reason that we see a build-up of armament among law enforcement in the States. I expect that government will try to forcibly push common law back under the covers somehow.
"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."
Authoritarian anarchism teaches men, by its authoritarianism, how to dwell among without will of state.
"... dwell among without ..."
Dwell among what?
At a time when there were only a few people in the world, the only thing that held them together was love.
Sooner or later among people there is going to be the thief. Some people simply do this. It is a standard fact of life.
If the thief steals from you, you can protect yourself, man to man, from the thief.
If the thief is smart, he will get together with a few others of like mind, and you will not be able to stop them all.
If you are smart, you will get together with a few others of like mind. Then you will be able to stop the thieves.
"... without will of state," is a really neat idea. But it never lasts. Best is a state that upholds "harm no one, and don't damage someone's property" by making it a non-state accusing when a state official does the harm or damage.
In other words, the state officials act in their official capacity when prosecuting harm or damage acts, but if THEY do harm or damage, even in their official capacity, they are prosecuted in their non-official capacity, by others who are in THEIR official capacity.
This is the basic thing that the U.S. Constitution provides for, along with protecting the nation from foreign aggression. The fact that the people have allowed themselves to become so extremely stupid about this, that they don't use what they have, but rather often seek to overthrow the best form of government out there, shows just how strong the Constitution is. Even government can't destroy it, but, rather, is required to destroy all destroyers of this Constitutional government, be they from without or within.
"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."
Authoritarian anarchism teaches men, by its authoritarianism, how to dwell among without will of state.
"... dwell among without ..."
Dwell among what?
At a time when there were only a few people in the world, the only thing that held them together was love.
Sooner or later among people there is going to be the thief. Some people simply do this. It is a standard fact of life.
If the thief steals from you, you can protect yourself, man to man, from the thief.
If the thief is smart, he will get together with a few others of like mind, and you will not be able to stop them all.
If you are smart, you will get together with a few others of like mind. Then you will be able to stop the thieves.
"... without will of state," is a really neat idea. But it never lasts. Best is a state that upholds "harm no one, and don't damage someone's property" by making it a non-state accusing when a state official does the harm or damage.
In other words, the state officials act in their official capacity when prosecuting harm or damage acts, but if THEY do harm or damage, even in their official capacity, they are prosecuted in their non-official capacity, by others who are in THEIR official capacity.
This is the basic thing that the U.S. Constitution provides for, along with protecting the nation from foreign aggression. The fact that the people have allowed themselves to become so extremely stupid about this, that they don't use what they have, but rather often seek to overthrow the best form of government out there, shows just how strong the Constitution is. Even government can't destroy it, but, rather, is required to destroy all destroyers of this Constitutional government, be they from without or within.
I prefer a strong democracy with general pamilihan fair, honest, free and confidential, with the above principles emapat expected to create a democratic system that truly impartial to the interests of the people, instead of democracy is only concerned with the interests of groups and parties, let alone personal interests. .. 
If the law among people was simply, harm no-one and don't damage the property of anyone. Other than that you were entirely free. That would be about as free as a nation could get.
The two things that government would be needed for would be to enforce the above when necessary, and to protect from foreign nations that might attack.
When you REALLY understand what the Constitution of/for The United States of America is all about, you will see that it does this exact thing.
There is one major problem with all this. It's obvious from the way all of you post, that you don't realize the freedom you have with the Constitution. If you had realized it, you would have said these things already, long ago.
To start learning about how to make freedom in America work for you, study this:
http://1215.org/indexe.html
"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."The two things that government would be needed for would be to enforce the above when necessary, and to protect from foreign nations that might attack.
When you REALLY understand what the Constitution of/for The United States of America is all about, you will see that it does this exact thing.
There is one major problem with all this. It's obvious from the way all of you post, that you don't realize the freedom you have with the Constitution. If you had realized it, you would have said these things already, long ago.
To start learning about how to make freedom in America work for you, study this:
http://1215.org/indexe.html
Authoritarian anarchism teaches men, by its authoritarianism, how to dwell among without will of state.
If the law among people was simply, harm no-one and don't damage the property of anyone. Other than that you were entirely free. That would be about as free as a nation could get.
The two things that government would be needed for would be to enforce the above when necessary, and to protect from foreign nations that might attack.
When you REALLY understand what the Constitution of/for The United States of America is all about, you will see that it does this exact thing.
There is one major problem with all this. It's obvious from the way all of you post, that you don't realize the freedom you have with the Constitution. If you had realized it, you would have said these things already, long ago.
To start learning about how to make freedom in America work for you, study this:
http://1215.org/indexe.html
The two things that government would be needed for would be to enforce the above when necessary, and to protect from foreign nations that might attack.
When you REALLY understand what the Constitution of/for The United States of America is all about, you will see that it does this exact thing.
There is one major problem with all this. It's obvious from the way all of you post, that you don't realize the freedom you have with the Constitution. If you had realized it, you would have said these things already, long ago.
To start learning about how to make freedom in America work for you, study this:
http://1215.org/indexe.html
See the reply below for an elucidation of "authoritarian anarchism."
"The only legitimate function of government is the enhanced crucifixion [authoritarian] of those that hold government to have a legitimate function [anarchist]."
That's an example of more fundamentalist authoritarian anarchism.
Satirically, it may be termed "the collection of taxes for the execution of taxpayers." However, it's formally "the imposition of pseudo-anarchy via authoritarianism."
"The only legitimate function of government is the enhanced crucifixion [authoritarian] of those that hold government to have a legitimate function [anarchist]."
That's an example of more fundamentalist authoritarian anarchism.
Satirically, it may be termed "the collection of taxes for the execution of taxpayers." However, it's formally "the imposition of pseudo-anarchy via authoritarianism."
That makes very little sense, but what you appear to be saying is that anarchy can be imposed using the existing mechanism of authoritarian violence... which is exactly like the Orwellian idea that "War is Peace".
Democracy is wrong. It is rule by the majority. If you are in the 49% who doesn't like what the 51% voted into place, do you want to be forced to do it? That's what democracy is. Get rid of it.
That's assuming that the supposed representatives of the majority actually are representing the interests of the majority... which is obviously untrue. The "news" media presents an illusion of choice between millionaire scumbag #1 and millionaire douchebag #2, while largely ignoring 3rd party candidates that are clearly much more honest. Dictatorships are more honest in that they don't put on a big show to make it seem as if they were chosen by the masses.
Quote
In the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., that's the basis of law - the common law. The reason we don't see it is that the governments of these nations have tried and hidden it from the people. It's time for the people to wake up.
Common law is still man-made law. Learn about Natural Law for a purely logical basis to moral behavior.
A critical flaw of pure anarchy, for pre-ential humanity, is that it permits its own destablishment. Authoritarian anarchy is pure anarchy minus that flaw.
See the reply below for an elucidation of "authoritarian anarchism."
"The only legitimate function of government is the enhanced crucifixion [authoritarian] of those that hold government to have a legitimate function [anarchist]."
That's an example of more fundamentalist authoritarian anarchism.
Satirically, it may be termed "the collection of taxes for the execution of taxpayers." However, it's formally "the imposition of pseudo-anarchy via authoritarianism."
"The only legitimate function of government is the enhanced crucifixion [authoritarian] of those that hold government to have a legitimate function [anarchist]."
That's an example of more fundamentalist authoritarian anarchism.
Satirically, it may be termed "the collection of taxes for the execution of taxpayers." However, it's formally "the imposition of pseudo-anarchy via authoritarianism."
That makes very little sense, but what you appear to be saying is that anarchy can be imposed using the existing mechanism of authoritarian violence... which is exactly like the Orwellian idea that "War is Peace".
Democracy is wrong. It is rule by the majority. If you are in the 49% who doesn't like what the 51% voted into place, do you want to be forced to do it? That's what democracy is. Get rid of it.
That's assuming that the supposed representatives of the majority actually are representing the interests of the majority... which is obviously untrue. The "news" media presents an illusion of choice between millionaire scumbag #1 and millionaire douchebag #2, while largely ignoring 3rd party candidates that are clearly much more honest. Dictatorships are more honest in that they don't put on a big show to make it seem as if they were chosen by the masses.
Quote
In the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., that's the basis of law - the common law. The reason we don't see it is that the governments of these nations have tried and hidden it from the people. It's time for the people to wake up.
Common law is still man-made law. Learn about Natural Law for a purely logical basis to moral behavior.
virtuous authoritarian anarchist
You couldn't come up with a more oxymoronic idea than that if you tried.Democracy is wrong. It is rule by the majority. If you are in the 49% who doesn't like what the 51% voted into place, do you want to be forced to do it? That's what democracy is. Get rid of it.
Rather, enact common law all over. Common law says, do anything you want, anything at all, as long as you don't:
1. Harm other people;
2. Damage their property;
3. Break a contract that you signed into with full understanding.
Who cares about what a constitution or other document says? As law as common law as stated above is the basis for all of it, freedom will abound.
In the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., that's the basis of law - the common law. The reason we don't see it is that the governments of these nations have tried and hidden it from the people. It's time for the people to wake up.
Rather, enact common law all over. Common law says, do anything you want, anything at all, as long as you don't:
1. Harm other people;
2. Damage their property;
3. Break a contract that you signed into with full understanding.
Who cares about what a constitution or other document says? As law as common law as stated above is the basis for all of it, freedom will abound.
In the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., that's the basis of law - the common law. The reason we don't see it is that the governments of these nations have tried and hidden it from the people. It's time for the people to wake up.
I agree with this very much. Democracy is touted as the fairest form of government, but I don't think that any form of government that allows the rights of an individual to be taken away at the behest of the majority, just for the sake of it being a more popular position, can possibly be regarded as "fair." A fair government protects the rights of everyone, at all times. Your life, liberty, and property should not be taken from you involuntarily, and the only legitimate function of government is to make sure that those three things aren't.
That's an example of more fundamentalist authoritarian anarchism.
Satirically, it may be termed "the collection of taxes for the execution of taxpayers." However, it's formally "the imposition of pseudo-anarchy via authoritarianism."
From http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm :
Quote
Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. (NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.)
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. (NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.)
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. (NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.)
The point is, in the United States, we have a Constitution that provides a Republic form of government. The only thing that holds people back from exercising their rights is, they don't know how to exercise the laws of a republic... THE COMMON LAW. Start at the above website. Then learn the way Karl Lentz does it.
http://www.broadmind.org/
http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/
http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html
Jump to: