There are many reasons why America’s Founders wanted a republican form of government rather than a democracy. Theoretically, a democracy requires the full participation of the masses of the people in the legislative or decision-making processes of government. This has never worked because the people, as good as they might be, become so occupied with their daily tasks that they will not properly study the issues, nor will they take the time to participate in extensive hearings before the vote is taken. The Greeks tried to use democratic mass participation in the government of their city-states, and each time it ended in tyranny.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, summarized the Founders’ thinking by writing:
“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….” (Federalist Papers, No. 10)
“…and to the Republic, for which It stands…”
Madison continues:
“We may define a republic to be … a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. (Federalist Papers, No. 39)
The Founders knew that if the people were continually presented with the many issues and problems of government, they would soon tire of it and become disinterested in studying the issues in order to make intelligent decisions. They would tend to yield to the enticing emotions presented to them by those who have the power to control the masses. They chose, rather, to place such decisions in the hands of wise representatives or agents who would be specifically chosen to take the time to hold committee hearings, analyze data, and consider consequences of proposed laws. The main decision for the people would be who will represent us, and it would happen on a regular periodic basis, say every two or four years.
Even in making the choice of President of the United States, the Founders rejected a vote of the people. They knew, once again, as good as the people may be, they will not take the time to study the issues or the candidates in order to make such an important decision. Hence was born the original, brilliant, electoral college system, which, while we still have it somewhat, has since been terribly abused and distorted.
The People Are to Choose Qualified Representatives, Not Decide Issues
Since issues are always changing, the Founders advised to not continually excite the people about issues, but instead choose honest, experienced representatives to tackle issues as they come. In early New England, it was customary to have a respected clergyman give what was called an “Election Sermon” prior to an election. Samuel Langdon gave that before the Massachusetts legislature in 1788. He declared:
“On the people, therefore, of these United States, it depends whether wise men, or fools, good or bad men, shall govern…. Therefore, I will now lift up my voice and cry aloud to the people…. From year to year be careful in the choice of your representatives and the higher powers [offices] of government. Fix your eyes upon men of good understanding and known honesty; men of knowledge, improved by experience; men who fear God and hate covetousness; who love truth and righteousness, and sincerely wish for the public welfare…. Let not men openly irreligious and immoral become your legislators….”
A Frustrating Ballot
One only has to look at the current Arizona ballot to appreciate the wisdom of the Founders. It is two long pages of not only candidates, but also many propositions and laws to be voted on directly by the people. Every registered voter also receives, by mail, several multi-page pamphlets explaining the legal details of the proposed laws and the submitted arguments both for and against. Who will read all this stuff? Emotion and ignorance will reign again at the ballot box!
Citizens of Arizona may be interested to know that our Initiative measure in our Arizona Constitution which allows all these laws to be voted on by the people is a technical violation of the U. S. Constitution, which requires a republican form of government, not a democracy, in every state. (U. S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4)
Perhaps, Benjamin Franklin saw what was happening in our day when he reportedly described what they had given us by saying, “A Republic, if you can keep it!”
Human nature always seems to make most people want something for very little, if any, effort. When someone comes along and makes promises that seem to be able to relieve pains or struggles to make ends meet or to gratify our desires for the comforts of life, we somehow don’t think of the cost in dollars—or in our liberty. We just want it and wanting it makes us feel good about the magical future. People who want to get people to believe this way and to vote accordingly are sometimes called Marxists.
Marxism is the belief that the accumulation of capital is evil and that capital and property is what makes the wealthy take advantage of those who have less than the so-called capitalists. The whole effort of Marxists, then, is to convince the “laborers” that they deserve their fair share of the wealth and that the force of government should be employed to make it happen, so that all are equally enjoying prosperity and the comforts of life. It is a gross deception.
Sadly, we have recent historical examples of how this Marxist philosophy works in real life. There’s the Marxist Vladimir Lenin taking over Russia, or the Marxist Mao Zedong taking over China, or the Marxist Fidel Castro taking over Cuba.
Cuba had been the sugar-producing capital of the hemisphere, with huge farms and mechanized equipment to be able to provide millions of Cubans with employment. Then, along came the Marxist Fidel Castro who promised each worker their own plot of ground to do as they wished. What a dream! When the government was overthrown and Castro was in charge, they began to distribute the land equally. But the people soon realized they could not afford to buy the equipment necessary to keep up the production as before, so they had to work their two acres of ground by hand to survive. They had been deceived. But it was too late. The Marxists, in whom they had great hope, were now in charge, and the only ones living comfortably were the Marxists – the Deceivers. Russia and China had already experienced the same Marxist fate.
Now comes 2024, and another candidate in Kamala Harris who sounds a lot like the three Marxists noted above. She wants to create an “Opportunity economy where everyone has a chance to compete and a chance to succeed.” She wants to lower costs for middle class Americans for everyday needs like health care, housing, and groceries. She wants to give homebuyers $25,000. Where is she going to get the money to pay for all this?
The answer is simple. She is going to confiscate the capital from those who have it through higher taxes on income, property, and yes, even unrealized gains! Apparently, it sounds so good to those who want to live by the sweat of another man’s brow. But, as history teaches us, it is only a deceptive dream. It is against the laws of nature. It will end in disaster for America. And by the way, just like the case of Lenin, Mao, and Castro, Kamala Harris has never built a business and created jobs for anyone outside of government. She has no idea of how to build a lasting economy. It is no wonder that she falls in line with the thinking of her Marxist father. She was trained that way. Her theme is “A New Way Forward.” Mao’s theme was a “Great Leap Forward.” It is gross deception.
America was redeemed from the tyranny of Europe by the shedding of blood. If America ever loses the fragile freedoms we now have by embracing the deceptive, failed system of Marxism, who knows what it will take to get it back?
One of the principles of liberty our Founders adhered to is that only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being reserved to the people. This principle is clearly followed in Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution wherein is outlined the 20 or so areas in which Congress can make law. This concept was abandoned decades ago as Congress began legislating in many other areas not mentioned in Article 1, Section 8.
James Madison clearly explained this principle in Federalist Paper 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.” Unlike the federal Constitution, you will not find in state constitutions specific areas in which state legislatures can make law because there are so many.
How, then, are we to understand the limits our state legislatures, our city councils, our county board of supervisors have in making law? The answer to this question lies in the constitutional phrase “promote the General Welfare.” If one observes the 20 or so powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution, they are all areas that benefit the whole people like: military defense, a monetary system, a postal system, a system of weights and measures, a federal court system, etc. In other words, general welfare means if you tax all the people, then you only spend that money for things that benefit the whole people. Under “general welfare” there is to be no tax money going to individuals, special groups, or specific geographic locations, or any other kind of “specific” welfare.
This same principle should apply to state and local governments. For example, city councils should ask themselves what are the things that benefit all the people and that all the people use? The answer would include such things as: good streets, a well-functioning domestic water system, a good sewage system, good police protection, a fair local court system, etc. These are things individuals all want and are willing to spend money to obtain because they use them. It’s really what makes us want to live in a community rather than out in the wilderness. And furthermore, there is usually not much argument or contention about these things because we consider them things that make our lives comfortable.
But what happens when government officials try to use our tax money to provide things most of us don’t want and don’t use, such as: light rail and bus systems, sports stadiums, homeless facilities, conference centers, arts centers, museums, libraries, electric vehicle charging stations, narrower streets and more bike lanes? They try to sell us on these ideas as “Quality of Life” issues. These are issues that do not pay for themselves and therefore are a significant burden paid for mostly by taxpayers who do not use them. These are also issues that cause the most disagreement and contention in a community.
But the true purpose of government is to only protect equal rights so that people can be free to invent and produce items that give us real quality of life. This also leaves more resources in the hands of the people to give compassionate service to the truly needy.
The authority to govern rests innately with the people. Government only has the authority that the people give it. If a person has no authority to take from one person and give to another (stealing), then how can he give his agent, the government, the authority to forcibly take money from citizen A and give it to citizen B so he can, for example, be transported from point A to point B? Isn’t that stealing also? Someone may say, “Well, that’s why we vote.” But can the vote take away a person’s property by legalizing stealing? Of course not!
When we vote this November, hopefully we will choose those who respect the rights of all citizens and reject those who endorse programs which use the power of government to do what individuals can’t do – steal from the people.
