"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of." ~ Suzanna Gratia Hupp
The Republic Is a Fraud
Column by Paul Bonneau.
Exclusive to STR
Have you ever noticed how many people have bought into this notion that America is a republic? It’s amusing in a forum to use the word “democracy”; invariably, someone huffily states we have a Constitutional Republic, as if that statement closed the matter for good. How silly is that?
The Wikipedia article for the word “republic” shows that in general usage, it simply means “not a monarchy.” Thus, Islamic republics, and Soviet republics, were and are truly republics.
It also gives a particularly American version of meaning for the word:
A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance, a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. In the rest of the world, this is known as representative democracy.
If you then visit their article on representative democracy, you find the definition:
Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people, as opposed to autocracy and direct democracy.
The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives.
This definition should be a clue that something is amiss; we have “representatives” that are not “proxy representatives.” Before 1776, or thereabouts, “proxy” and “representative” were essentially synonyms. If you hired someone to represent you, he acted as your proxy. But since that time, the word “representative” has meant both “proxy” and “not proxy”!
If someone represents me, he does my bidding. But in the fantasy world of politics, we have “representatives” who claim to simultaneously represent both me and someone who believes the opposite of what I believe--that is, two people who are antagonists. It’s like going to court and having the same lawyer on both defense and prosecution! The only way this can be possible is that these people do not and cannot represent constituents in the pre-1776 sense of the word. Some representative!
Well, who do they represent? Good question. It appears “representative” is actually a euphemism for something else. As we all know, governments could not exist without liberal use of euphemisms, for pulling the wool over the people’s eyes.
That latter Wikipedia article also states,
...the United States relies on representative democracy, but its system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered.
And here we come to the second part of the fantasy. Not only is our government a republic, but it’s also constitutional. Anyone who really thinks so, should start with Spooner, to disabuse himself of this notion. And then he should consider the entire edifice of the US government, and see what part of it fits within Article I, Section 8. Of course I understand there are a lot of people who subscribe to the idea of a “living constitution,” which is of course no constitution at all. But then they agree with me and Spooner; there is no Constitution. They just like to have a little fig leaf to cover their embarrassment without coming out and saying it.
Everyone by now has had the experience of arguing some point that is in the Constitution. Has it not struck you, how two different people, each apparently intelligent individuals, can come up with completely different meanings for words (allegedly) written with the intention that they should not be misinterpreted? This is a major problem for constitutionalists, and for the whole idea of a written constitution whose job it is to limit government.
“Constitutional republic” is a fraud, a fantasy. Both parts of that phrase are a fraud. There is no constitution; and one cannot simultaneously represent opposites, if words are to retain any meaning. “Constitutional republic,” like so many other things in government, is simply the veneer that covers what we really have: an oligarchy of elites in the ruling class, supported by an army of bureaucrats and special interests, whose purpose is to parasitize the rest of us, concentrating the stolen loot in their hands, and to enjoy the exercise of power. This elite is largely but not perfectly coincident with corporate leaders, as it also includes inherited “old money” from New England and labor big shots.
Where is my proof? Easy. The one individual in government who actually believes the constitutional republic fantasy is Ron Paul. He is the one who most consistently, by far, follows the Constitution. Despite the fact that his constituents keep re-electing him with larger and larger margins (lots of them believe the fantasy too), he has to be the most marginalized member of Congress. There are an awful lot of 434-to-one votes in the past, and he has been shunted away from power for much longer than anyone with his standing. He has constantly had his own party try to defeat his re-election, and he has survived the gerrymandering and media attacks and all the rest.
If we truly had a constitutional republic, the individual most in sympathy with that position would be the Speaker of the House, not a voice crying in the wilderness.
More proof? Look at the Wikipedia article for Republicanism in the United States, and try to read it without laughing:
Republicanism is the political value system that has been a major part of American civic thought since the American Revolution. It stresses liberty and inalienable rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects inherited political power, expects citizens to be independent in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption.
That might have been plausible back in 1830 or so, but it is a joke in today’s police state. Go to the airport and read this paragraph to the TSA crotch fondlers; see if you can get on the plane without being abused.
It’s time for a little reality check for the believers in our civic religion. Spooner said it best: "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."