So now we learn that we all live in a democracy. That is news to me. I went to government school as a child and I was taught that the government that I was subject to was a constitutional republic. But nobody speaks about anything called a constitutional republic anymore. All I ever hear about is democracy this and democracy that. We believe we are a democracy. We believe everyone else in the world should be a democracy. We believe that if some other sovereign nation is not a democracy we have the moral right to send military forces into that country and force it to turn into one. That never works, of course, but we still think it is a great idea to attempt it anyway. The concept of civil government called democracy has truly become a bit of a god in our land.
The God of the Bible has an opinion about which form of civil government is enforced in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika. Would it surprise you to know that the God of the Bible does not believe in democracy? It is true. Back in the early days of this land, before the constitution was adopted, the political philosophers who wrote the founding documents that this country was supposed to be based upon understood that the God of the Bible did not support the concept of democracy. To a man, every person involved in the constitutional convention believed that democracy had the potential to be even worse than the despotism they believed they had just shaken off. You don't have to go far to see the truth in what I just wrote. Just read some of the writings from that era and see for yourself.
I am not proposing that all of the members of the constitutional convention were Bible believing Christians. Most were not. Most of them were probably deists. Nevertheless, the great majority of them were steeped in biblical ethics and biblical political philosophy. They understood that God, however they conceived of Him, had ordained civil government for a particular purpose. There are different ways to describe what that particular purpose is. Some would say that God had ordained that there should be only three civil rights conferred upon each citizen living in the land. Those rights are the right to life, the right to freedom and the right to use their own property as they see fit. Others would describe their fundamental understanding of civil government as being according to the non-aggression principle. According to that view government exists to guarantee that each person is free to do whatever he wants to do provided he does not engage in aggressive actions toward his neighbor. Still others would say that they believed that government should never be used to create winners and losers in society; that government exists for the purpose of protecting the three civil rights of the minority members within society.
The concept that civil government exists to protect the three civil rights of minority groups within society is what I was taught in government schools. Even then I could see that it was a laughable concept since everyone I knew believed something very different. The concept of majority rule, or democracy, had already firmly entrenched itself in the minds of my teachers and fellow students. Under the principles of democracy the majority is free to do what it wants to with the lives, freedom and property of the minority groups that exist within the geo-political boundaries of the commonwealth. Under the principles of democracy the majority exploits the minority groups as much as is economically and socially possible, short of inspiring armed rebellion against the majority.
49% of the citizens pay essentially all of the federal income taxes in this country because of democracy. The civil right to own one's own property does not apply to the minority group made up of the top 49% of the income population in this envy filled country and government certainly does nothing to protect those in the top 49%. The rich, whoever they are, are unceasingly and inaccurately castigated as evil beings deserving government regulation and control because they are in the minority. The poor, whoever they are, are praised as moral paragons and bathed in government wealth transfer programs because they are in the majority in this country. The concept of government limited to the protection of the rights to life, freedom and property of both the rich and the poor was abandoned long ago, if it was ever really practiced at all.
I picked up a newspaper from a local homeowners association a couple of weeks ago. I had some time to kill one day so I read through it. There was a section containing letters to the editor of the paper and the first letter caught my eye because it perfectly illustrated what democracy means to the God-hating citizens of this immoral land. A lady member of the association was up in arms because she believed the association was unfairly discriminating against her as a dog owner. Here is some of what she wrote, "I would like to call attention to the issue of horse manure on the open space trails. The open space committee has no concerns whatsoever about the piles of horse manure left on the trails. The committee fines dog owners for not cleaning up after their pets, but will not even consider fining the equestrians for the same offense, which is totally unjust." I love this. Can't you just see people out riding their horses, carrying enormous blue garbage bags and shovels so they can clean up after them after they poop?
I suspect this lady has been fined for failure to clean up after her dog and she is out for blood. She continues, "Anyone who bikes or hikes encounters enormous mounds of horse manure that need to be sidestepped by going off trail, which treads on the terrain, and poses the possibility of meeting up with a rattlesnake. Aside from the unpleasantness and noxious odors, horse manure contains parasites and viruses that can be potentially harmful. Horse manure is a breeding ground for various pathogens and can be environmentally hazardous. It can also be a breeding ground for flies, a nesting ground for rodents, and contaminate the water table, all of which can spread disease." Whew! Who knew that so many dangers are lurking in a simple pile of horse manure? I haven't heard but I guess dozens of people have been bitten by rattlesnakes, poisoned by parasites and gagged by noxious odors due to the hard-hearted and callous behavior of equestrians. This will not do.
So what does the dear lady who loves dogs and hate horses propose to do? I have told you this story for a reason. It perfectly illustrates the nature of democracy in our country today. She writes, "I understand that horse manure decomposes quickly and that there is some practicality in shoveling it aside. That does not negate the fact that the laws should apply equally to everyone concerned. What is excused for some but not others is in no way democratic and needs to be fully addressed." Well there you have it. Requiring dog owners to pick up their pet's poop and not placing that same requirement upon horse owners is undemocratic! Although I believe anyone not blinded by hatred for horse owners can clearly see that there is no injustice in the association's rules in regard to animal waste, this woman wants to have a vote so she can impose her will upon the smaller group of people who own horses. If she is successful in petitioning her association she might just get her way. There are far more dog owners than horse owners. I suspect the day is coming when horse owners will be banned from the trails in her association and the moral virtues of dog poop on the trails will be extolled to high heaven. That is what democracy does. It creates winners and losers and the majority always wins. What an immoral system it all is.
Government should exist to protect the civil rights of the minority. Under the terms of democracy the civil rights of the minority are always suppressed. That makes democracy an immoral system of government that is inherently contradictory. It does the opposite of what it is supposed to do. No wonder it is so popular in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.