Republic Vs Democracy

Republic vs.
Democracy
Jinco Inc.
Newsletter
It is hard to deny the extensive wisdom and foresight of our founding fathers when looking back into the pages of our history books. In the orchestration of our founding texts it is clearly evident that there was a significant anxiety towards the rule of the majority. If a majority was able to become too powerful, they realized that it could result in the oppression of the minorities. James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 10 said that in a pure democracy "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." They understood that if a pure democracy was implemented in America it could result in the same oppressive rule it pledged to protect its citizens from. John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." To deal with this ever-troubling dilemma, the founders decided that the only way to ensure the protection of individual rights, and to avoid the oppression of any minority group, it was imperative that they establish a Republic rather than a pure democracy. Alexander Hamilton said, "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship." In America, the only purpose of government was to protect a man's rights, even against the will of the majority. The proper role of government was thought to be that of a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The proper functions are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. A government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to one that allows you to do anything you wish to your neighbor as long as your gang is bigger than his, depriving them of the right to self-defense. To submit to the will of the majority and grant it as omnipotent is to submit to a world where the physical force of muscles and numbers is a substitute for justice, reality and truth. This is why our founders made it a point to exclude the word "democracy" in our nation's two most fundamental documents - the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Our Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees, "to every state in this union a Republican form of government." Our pledge of allegiance states not "the democracy for which it stands," but "the Republic for which it stands." John Adams captures the difference between a Republic and a Democracy when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human law; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." This means simply that Congress does not grant us rights; its job is to protect our natural or God-given rights. In a democracy, as in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be, and in the case of Democracy, the majority group determines that. Laws do not always represent reason and often result in force. The restraint is upon
Justin Jinorio
the individual instead of the government. Unlike a Republic, rights are seen as privileges and permissions granted by the majority and can be rescinded. To highlight the oppressiveness that can be found in a purely democratic society, ask yourself how many decisions in your life would you like to be made democratically. How about your job, how much you get paid, the doctor you see, where you live and whom you marry? If decisions like these were made in the form of a democratic process, to most t his would be seen as tyranny and not personal liberty. This brings us to the advancement of socialistic principles in our society, and what is socialism but the quest of the majority of the working class claiming the right to the ownership of the property of the minority, or the capitalists? Do the public-sector unions have the right to take our taxpayer money by force just because they have the numbers? Does another man have any claim to your wealth and property just because his gang is bigger than yours? Is this not for what our founding fathers fought extensively to prevent? Both we, and our fellow men around the globe, should be advocating liberty, not the democracy that we have become where a roguish Congress does anything upon which it can muster a majority vote. This is a lesson Egyptians should pay close attention to when developing their new government.

Republic Vs Democracy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic Vs Democracy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic Vs Democracy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What concerns did the founding fathers have regarding pure democracy?

What is the difference between a republic and a democracy according to the passage?

Republic vs.

You might also like