This essay was actually contributed by a person who wants to be called Diogenes of Arkansas in response to my most recent post titled In search of a brand-new political model.
Your quote by Jefferson (One man with courage is a majority) is a metaphor for the form of government the founders of the American Republic created—a Constitutional Republic.
“The purpose of a Constitutional Republic is to place limits on the tyranny of the majority. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote: “If, on the other hand, a legislative power could be so constituted as to represent the majority without necessarily being the slave of its passions, an executive so as to retain a proper share of authority, and a judiciary so as to remain independent of the other two powers, a government would be formed which would still be democratic while incurring scarcely any risk of tyranny.”
When people claim the U.S. is a democracy, they are wrong, because a democracy means that the majority rules, which is how you can have 500,001 impose their will on 499,999 in a population of 1,000,000. Yet, this is now the practice in the U.S., which is unconstitutional and a violation of the spirit and intent of the Constitution as the fundamental legal document in the U.S Republic.
Your statement on Japanese people escaping into cartoons and comic books caught me by surprise. However, when I looked into American comic book sales figures, the rate of sales has grown approximately 30%, according to “Comic Chronicles”.
While I noticed that television appears to be showing more cartoons aimed at adults, I was surprised to see that Fox is the main cartoon network for adults in primetime, and that all of them are spoofs on American families or fathers. This is the list I found at Fox, which appears to me to have increased in number in the last ten years: American Dad, Bob’s Burgers, The Cleveland Show, Family Guy, and the long running comic strip transitioned to cartoon The Simpsons.
Thus, it leaves one to consider that your data in Japan may be reflected in the U.S. So not only are Americans importing Toyotas and Fukushima debris, we are getting infected by your escapism plague as well. I’d like to say, “Thank you for your gifts,” but it doesn’t seem appropriate.
This quote of yours about how you envision a new constitutional form of government has at least two glaring flaws to me.
“If I were them, I would put forth a general design concept on the web as a draft constitution for online skull sessions. Our constitution would say the new government should consist of two branches, instead of three, because there would be no legislators. The executive and judicial powers would lie with the smallest units of people such as private companies, towns or villages.”
Private companies are still companies. Companies have a vested interest in controlling legislation to benefit their business interests above the interests of the mass of individual members of the society or country, or to paraphrase Jefferson, “The majority of one.”
In the U.S., the Judicial branch of government is so corrupted at ALL levels that some other system needs to be created, and this goes as high as the U.S. Supreme Court, where they illegally and unconstitutionally decided the winner in the Presidential election of 2000. All the Justices that voted in this way should have been impeached by Congress, but it never happened because Congress is totally, and I mean TOTALLY, corrupt. This includes the fake hero Ron Paul.
I think it is safe to say that if we examine ancient history, the first form of what might be considered government were the herds of animals. These herd animals simply gathered together instinctively for protection and species reproduction. All members of the herd were free to come and go as they pleased. Clearly, some members had to have broken away to form new herds, which could be considered in human terms as bands or tribes. It could be argued that this herd instinct was reflected in the behavior of the ancient hunter-gatherers.
With the death of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, civilizations emerged and with them governments. This monumental change in the relationship between humans (civilization) was the beginning of enslavement. Afterwards, every living thing was born into slavery, whether plant, animal, or human. In the Christian bible’s Old Testament myths, a god created everything and gave humans the right to be slave masters of all other things, as long as they kept the covenant this god demanded—a small price to pay to be in the coveted position of master. Thus, even as far back in mythological Middle Eastern time, we see that a master (god’s chosen people with divine rights above all other peoples) and slave relationship was invoked by none other than a god (actually the clever concept of the author of this text), a wrathful god that was, by HIS own words, dangerous if crossed (this text may be the first written example of a domestic terrorist threat).
Down through the ages hence, whether pre- or post-Christian, occasionally some oppressed peoples have challenged this unjust birthright like the Diggers in England. It doesn’t take much imagination to see that the communities and ideas set forth by these Diggers and Levelers were yearning to return to the freedom experienced by the hunter-gatherers. As can be expected, the conditioning, even then, was such that these liberating ideas were resisted by the majority, and these radicals were easily squashed by the persons with the means to force them to submit—meaning Cromwell and Fairfax, who controlled the military forces.
Eventually, the master/slave system had its first real challenge with the Greek experiment, and resting on the shoulders of those Greek geniuses were the scholars of the Age of Enlightenment. In the North American colonies, the scholars of these ideas of man’s innate freedom (The Rights of Man) appear to have been sufficient in number to affect enough people and motivate them to revolt against their master, the King of England and the power behind the throne that is greater than the king.
Because these Enlightenment scholars were men of letters, they used letters to create rules for the correct behavior and conduct between humans in their colonies. Thus, a Constitutional Republic was created. Of course, it was ignored and usurped almost immediately by such laws as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which pitted those supporting states’ rights (those who supported each state as a sovereign nation and supported the concept of a weak federal body) vs. the federalists (those supporting a strong federal government able to impose its will on weak states).
The history of the United States and nearly all governments in the world are examples of the usurpation of Constitutional laws. The only exception to this that I’ve read about is when no laws were written down but were memorized by the citizens. Everyone must know the laws by heart, and thus, any violations of these laws or new legislation to override these laws would be immediately known to all of the citizens in the society. No Supreme Court was necessary to interpret the laws, since everyone knew the laws’ intent.
On the successful completion of the revolution in the colonies, a Declaration of Independence was proclaimed. It included these most important words, reflecting Enlightenment principles and the sentiment of Thomas Paine, author of the Rights of Man.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Sounds good on paper, but in less than eighty years, the existing form of government was challenged by states that wanted to exercise the right “…to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government” and create a binding legal framework for themselves that more closely suited them. Abraham Lincoln, a traitor to the Constitution as supreme law and the spirit of this declaration, deliberately started the American Civil War that saw over 500,000 souls lose their lives. He and the Congress that permitted his dictatorial initiation of this war were responsible for the utter destruction of the infrastructure of those independence minded states. It was a classic Clausewitz-style war of total destruction. One could say with certitude that Lincoln’s deadly act was the inevitable outcome of simply one more failed system in the long history in the ongoing experiment of humans to either govern themselves or to be living as slaves in varying degrees of oppression by others.
At the conclusion of this terrible event, a man named Lysander Spoon entered this statement into the Congressional record in 1867.
Spooner’s introduction to his paper is a reflection of support for the Rights of Man, and a condemnation of Lincoln’s murderous coup d’état.
“The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded.
“On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.
“The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, make them traitors and criminals.
“No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.
“Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that --- in theory, at least, if not in practice --- our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established.
“If that principle be not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known. If it be the principle of the Constitution, the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown.”
The key word here is “consent.” No government today anywhere on this planet has the consent of the governed. As Spooner later states in his paper, he didn’t participate in this written contract known as the U.S. Constitution. It can only apply to those who were alive when it was created and agreed to be bound by it, and since he was never a signatory to this contract, it can’t have any power over him. This is why Jefferson is quoted as advocating a revolution every twenty years, so that the next generation may create their own rules that men would agree to abide by during their lifetimes.
Later, in more recent history in Republican Spain, some areas were ruled by Anarchists—persons that believed in total self-governance and elimination of all forms of external coersion. While this experiment was reported to be successful, and testimonies tell us those persons affected by this method were very pleased with it, they came under attack from both the Soviet supported Communists and the Fascist Falange. It seems that pyramidal power structures of oppression by a few against the many always gain the upper hand, and independent rule is such a threat that it must be totally exterminated, as we saw with Lincoln’s betrayal of the Rights of Man during the Civil War.
And how far has the American Constitutional Republic sunk in the quicksand of no return? Americans live in a police state that most people refuse to see. The constitutional right of a President to issue Executive Orders, which was not clearly spelled out in the original document, has allowed for the creation of dictator to arise. Now we have a President that has gone to the most extreme end of tyranny—he has created an Executive Order that allows him and any future President to order the murder of anyone, anywhere, and this includes American citizens. No habeas corpus right, which was lost in previous legislation passed by members of both houses of Congress; no right to a trial; this is clear Stalinism or Maoism, two of the biggest mass murderers of their own citizens in world history. And when I’ve reported to my neighbors these and other equally dangerous acts by the American government, I get nothing but a blank stare. This behavior by Americans near and far is clear evidence of escapism and denial. Don’t worry, be happy.
So, whether your e-Democracy is possible, or if the opportunity for the public to institute a similar system as advocated by Gerald Celente of Trends Research, it isn’t going to happen. For change to occur, it must begin with an informed citizenry, and that public is comprised of individual members, each one needing the complete ingestion of all the relevant data, and more importantly, having the motivation to want to know this data. The basic reason for the failure of this kind of liberating concept is that most people are ossified, and, as you rightly label it, “change disabled.” The label “cowards” is also an accurate description. Thus, based on my observations up to this point, we can assume that we will be witnesses over the coming years and decades of an even greater and more pernicious form of imposed slavery, and that no matter how constricting it will become, these “change disabled” will not resist, as long as they are able to flee into their comic books, or cartoons, or in the example of the Soviet Union—vodka bottles. These are the responses of the defeated, and our masters know they’ve won.
“You may now leave Room 101, Winston.”