In a democracy, voters live under the illusion of self-rule. But how can one 
rule himself when he is continually voting away his rights and property to 
others? Or when others are continuously stripping away his own rights and 

Freedom is impossible without private property, yet most Americans have been 
brainwashed by government-credentialed institutions to believe (not think) that 
mass acceptance of democracy equals freedom, resulting in the majority selling 
its birthright of liberty (rights and property) for a bowl of porridge (Social 
Security, Medicare, food stamps, free cheese). 

We have devolved from eagles into lemmings in just eleven generations.

Democracy shares many characteristics with its more outwardly totalitarian 
equivalents, including 'public education' (translate: government mind-
conditioning) of those children who survive abortion. Yet Socialism is no less 
tyrannical when viewed as government benevolence by numbed, compliant minds.

Simple equality before the written law has been replaced with mandated equality 
of outcome in every area of life, proving to the global elite that it is 
possible to homogenize and re-educate (condition) an entire nation to think in 
terms of forced sameness (democracy) as freedom.

The following is reproduced from a chapter titled 'Republic vs. Democracy' from 
my book, 'Losing Your Illusions':

Most adult Americans living today started out each school day as young children 
by pledging allegiance to the flag '... and to the Republic for which it 
stands.' Can you imagine pledging '.. and to the Democracy for which it stands?'

Yet President Clinton and most of our elected politicians keep referring to 
America as a 'Democracy.' No doubt this is because they weren't taught the 
difference under government-funded, outcome-based public 'education.' And their 
parents and teachers probably weren't taught the difference either. The 
Founders knew the difference, however. 

James Madison warned: '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.'

Alexander F. Tyler stated: 'A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of 
government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote 
themselves largess out of the treasury with the result that democracies always 
collapse over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship.'

Fisher Ames stated: 'Liberty has never lasted long in a democracy, nor has it 
ever ended in anything better than despotism.'

Samuel Adams stated: 'Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes itself, 
exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not 
commit suicide.'

As Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall in Philadelphia, he was 
asked by an onlooker what form of government he and his countrymen had created 
during the first and to date, only constitutional convention. His answer: 'A 
Republic, if you can keep it.'

The Founders understood that there is a spectrum of Liberty that spans a 
gradient from anarchy, which is 0% government and 100% Liberty, to 
totalitarianism, which is 100% government and 0% Liberty. On this scale, 
Democracy is past the center and heading towards increasing government and 
Socialism. A little further past Socialism and you reach Fascism and then true 
totalitarianism -- 100% government and zero individual Liberty. 

Bear in mind that not all republics have a written constitution. Remember the 
USSR -- the United Soviet Socialist Republic? A constitutionally limited 
republic, with restrictions that properly limit government, provides for the 
protection of life and property yet still preserves individual liberty.

Many in America today already view our present government as Democratic 
Socialism, just a step away from the pure Socialism practiced in countries such 
as Sweden. Many of today's alert students of recent history see numerous, 
uncanny parallels between Germany in the 1930's and America in the 1990's.

Good government is based on the collective right of self-defense where each 
Citizen is in the law enforcement business and stands as an armed shield 
against government tyranny. 

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: 'Experience should teach us to be 
most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are 
beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their 
liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in 
insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.'

Our Founders designed America as a constitutional Republic under the rule of 
written Law, not a Democracy under the rule of opinion or public policy 
guidelines. A vast ocean of difference separates the two forms of government.

As students of history, the Founders knew that democracies always degenerate 
into favoritism, special interest groups, mob rule, and, ultimately, tyranny 
due to a majority of the uninformed public consistently and predictably voting 
to reelect those politicians who would guarantee them the redistribution of 
public wealth. 

They knew that a Republic protects minority individuals against a malicious and 
willful majority. A perfect, if somewhat cynical, definition of a Democracy is 
two ravenous wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for breakfast. 

Explaining the disaster that a Democracy can become, Karl Marx, known as 
the 'Father of Communism' and himself a student of political science, 
stated: 'Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as 
soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the 
government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury 
and bankrupt the nation.'

Even our military command knows the difference. The United States Army training 
manual number 2000-25, dated November 20, 1928 states in defining a Democracy: 

'A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meetings or any 
other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude towards 
property is communistic; negative property rights. Attitude toward law is that 
the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based upon deliberation 
of the governed by passion, prejudice and impulse with-out restraint; or regard 
to consequences. It results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, 

This same 1928 Army training manual had the following to say about a Re-
public: 'Authority is derived through the election by the people of public 
officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect 
for laws and individual rights and economic procedure. Attitude toward law is 
the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established 
evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. Avoids the dangerous extreme of 
tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, 
contentment and progress. It is the ‘standard form’ of government.'

So apparently, our military does understand the advantages of a representative, 
republican form of government over raw democracy. A constitutional Republic, 
vigilantly guarded by an informed and enlightened electorate and represented 
not by politicians, but by statesmen who would tirelessly defend Liberty and 
Property, stands a fighting chance of not deteriorating into a Democracy. 

Remember this the next time a TV newsreader extols the virtue of the recent 
imposition of Democracy in some emerging nation, or a public figure wants to 
pick your pocket to make the world 'safe for Democracy.' Under a Democracy, one 
can appear to be free but can never truly be at Liberty as under a Republic. 

Always keep in mind that the perfect slave is one who believes he is free. 
Under a Democracy, we apparently need bureaucratic swarms of self-annointed 
responsibility consultants to decide what is in the public's best interest to 
read, view, inhale, ingest, inject, etc. 

Under a condition of true Liberty, however, a medical practitioner could hang a 
sign on his door exclaiming: 'Quack! Come On In And I'll Remove Your Appendix!' 
Since the public would be expected to be responsible for their own actions, 
there would be no need for bureaucrats, agencies, regulations and licensing to 
protect them; since they could choose not to patronize the quack simply by 
voting with their feet.

Let's INFORM AMERICA together! Tell a friend...

Don't want to believe this one?
Anothers ViewPoint
Or, Read this large PDF.

As one of our founding fathers once said:
"[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy
that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's
life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every
one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination
of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers
of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the
capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few."

-- John Adams (An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, 29 August 1763)

Reference: Original Intent, Barton (338); original The Papers of
John Adams, Taylor, ed., vol. 1 (83)

Patriots Page: ARCHIVES # 1

The ads shown here
may not necessarily
represent our views,
but you should
certainly feel free
to visit them
if you wish.

Visit the Patriots Page
Visit the Made in USA Search Engine

These pages are developed by J. R. Beaman - Web Master at - The WWWeb Factory
On-Line July 4th, 1996 - © All Rights Reserved - Member HTML Writers Guild
Be sure to clear your memory and disk cache, as our pages may change daily!
Products and companies referred to herein are trademarks or registered
trademarks of their respective companies or mark holders.