Why Democracy Is Evil And We Should Pledge To Not Become One

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Email | RSS

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “Democracy is an evil.  It is the diabolical, despicable method of instituting and promulgating government.  If someone says democracy, run.  Now, that’s not to say that democracy doesn’t have some uses. Here we find the first inconvenience and the first problem with democracy, that is, not everyone with an interest is going to participate in either protecting that interest, or weakening their ownership of that interest, or strengthening the ownership of that interest.  That’s a problem.”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

FOLKS, a message from Mike – The Clip of The Day videos, Project 76 features, Church Doctrine videos and everything else on this site are supported by YOU. We have over 75, of my personally designed, written, produced and directed products for sale in the Founders Tradin’ Post, 24/7,  here. You can also support our efforts with a Founders Pass membership granting total access to years of My work for just .17 cents per day. Not convinced? Take the tour! Thanks for 17 years of mike church.com! – Mike

HERE’S YOUR FREE AUDIO PREVIEW OF THIS CLIP OF THE DAY

[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|FP-Founding Brother|FP-Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]

[/private]

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Democracy is an evil.  It is the diabolical, despicable method of instituting and promulgating government.  If someone says democracy, run.  Now, that’s not to say that democracy doesn’t have some uses.  For example, if we have a private concern and we have a disagreement on how to distribute or use some of the resources of that private concern, one of the democratic ways to settle that is by a vote.  There’s nothing inherently wrong in that.  Your property is not going to be taken away from you inside of the organization.  You’re just going to allocate it into one person’s idea as opposed to another.  In that manner, it’s not a bad idea.

Let me tell you where democracy runs off the rails.  It’s not difficult to conceive, not difficult to even see.  As a matter of fact, there may be elections this weekend where you can see it.  What if there’s a property tax for landowners on a ballot?  If we take out the land that is owned by government – let’s just say that the tax only applies to non-commercial real estate.  So if we remove all the commercial real estate, and we remove all the government needful buildings, etc., etc., what remains is private property that is owned by you, fair listener, or by me.  Let’s just say that[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|FP-Founding Brother|FP-Founding Father|FP-Lifetime] some politician, or some lobbyist has convinced some politician, or some despicable corporatist has convinced some politician that they need to put an initiative on the ballot to fund a certain endeavor that they are most certain to profit from and they put it on the ballot.  If the ballot initiative is successful, whether you vote or not will be immaterial.  You will have to pay the tax if you own property.

Here we find the first inconvenience and the first problem with democracy, that is, not everyone with an interest is going to participate in either protecting that interest, or weakening their ownership of that interest, or strengthening the ownership of that interest.  That’s a problem.  Remember, we’re dealing with private property, real estate in other words, not commercial, purely residential.  We’ve eliminated government and we’ve eliminated commercial real estate property.  All that remains is private.  Regardless of how it’s zoned, it’s all private.

Now, let’s just say then for argument’s sake that we then have 10,000 property owners that remain.  Only 6500 of them – that’s about the national average – just a little short of two-thirds of them are registered to vote in our tax referendum that Dr. Evil is endorsing and wishes to be passed.  We’ve already confronted the first problem with democracy.  Now we confront the second problem.  Thirty-five percent of those that have private property are not interested in voting.  They either haven’t registered, or by some legal means they can’t register, or perhaps they just don’t want to register.  It doesn’t mean they don’t care about their property.  It doesn’t mean that they don’t wish to retain their property.  It doesn’t mean any of those things.  That conclusion does not follow from the fact they haven’t registered to vote.  We only have 65 percent of the 10,000.  Now we’re down to 6500.

Well, come election day, it just happens to be a Tuesday.  Gee, I wonder how that happened.  Not a Saturday, a Tuesday.  And on said election day, there’s not much else on the ballots.  Obama’s not running so he can’t be defeated.  There’s no initiative to repel homosexual marriages or anything of that sort.  There’s a couple of other stuff you probably don’t care very much about on the ballot.  Voter turnout is only 20 percent.  If we take 6500 times 20 percent, now we have 1300 people.  We started with 10,000 and now we’re down to 1300.  What’s wrong with this picture?  Now we have 13 percent of the property owners that are going to vote for a tax on their own land.  It wouldn’t even be difficult to bribe 1300 people to vote – it gets even worse, before I hatch my conspiracy theory.

Out of 1300 votes, class, in a pure democracy, how many votes will it now take to secure an affirmative action here, to win the initiative at the ballot?  It will take 651 votes.  Remember, we started with 10,000 property owners.  We’ve eliminated that most of them aren’t going to vote, which gives us 1300 people that are going to vote.  Folks, I’ve seen elections where it’s eight percent turnout, 15 percent turnout.  Of the 20 percent that turn out, it would only take 50 percent of them plus one, so 651 people, six-and-a-half percent that will now determine the taxing authority fate of 10,000.  It doesn’t have to be a tax I’m talking about.  It could be a regulation, could be a health code, could be anything.

Do you now see the folly of democracy?  It’s not representative because it can’t be.  Because it can’t be representative, then what is it?  It always lends itself to deception and corruption.  That’s the way it happens.  It has never survived and it never will.  It ultimately collapses under the weight of its own corruption.  We’re about there right now.  Why would anyone in their right mind be running around and stumping for the term democracy?  Yet in our rhetoric today, in the rhetoric of the American sheeple, whether they’re in the political class or the economic class or in the working class, it doesn’t matter.  The term democracy is used over and over and over again.  The term republic is used improperly because we don’t have a republic anymore, as I’ve just demonstrated.  The term republican is hardly ever used.  No one even knows what a republican is.

Under a republican system, what you would do is set your vote up – you could still have votes, although some measures should never be on ballots.  You can still have votes, but you should set them up so that super majorities – two-thirds, three-quarters – would be necessary in order to alter any significant part of the law.  Even then, in a system of republics, you’d still want to divide the power to see to it that people that have divergent interests, factions as James Madison called them, would still be able to, especially geographically speaking, vote against or for things and could make common cause with others.  They have to have vast majorities.

What this does is a far better job of protecting the minority interest.  It keeps most of these things off the ballot, especially since campaigns are expensive.  Republicanism can and does work and function much better than democracy ever will.  Do you think it’s a coincidence that when you say republican or when you’re wearing your [r]epublican – the point is that republicanism is a far better system.  The founders certainly had their flaws.  The Constitution is certainly a flawed document.  We shouldn’t continue any longer under flawed documents.  That’s a discussion for another show.  It is not a democratic instrument.  It has become a democratic instrument, but it was not a democratic instrument.

I’m going to tell you the one sterling silver feature of the Constitution that, had it bene preserved, may have prevented much of what we’re talking about today, and could have and should have been copied by the several states, and that is the electoral college. [/private]

In one of the first amendments that had to be proffered was we have to get rid of the Electoral College.  By the bye, no founder would ever admit this, but this is just a very similar by which the pope is elected, by the College of Cardinals.  I know, I know, I just thought I’d throw that in because I’m an historian and I study these things and that’s what the history says.

The Electoral College was not a democratic institution.  It prevented democracy from choosing the president.  It would have reminded us, every four years, that we don’t have a democracy; we have republicanism.  We were attempting to have some sort of a republic, or at least a federation of republic states.  That’s gone.  We don’t have it any longer.  That’s bad.  It’s dangerous.  Let’s start the Memorial Day weekend with a pledge to one another that we won’t use the term democracy, unless we’re voting on whether we’re going to have whole wheat or white bread buns for our hamburgers this weekend.  Then we can have democracy.

End Mike Church Show Transcript