Is Democracy a Flawed Concept?

We often hear claims that the United States is a democracy and just as often statements that our democracy is the finest example of self government ever devised by man. Is this latter point true? Before that question can be answered perhaps we should determine exactly what it is that constitutes a democracy.

We all know (or at least we believe), that each and every one of us has a voice in how we are governed - but do we? Each one of us also knows (or at least we each individually believe), that each one of us has a representative who represents our individual personal interests in the various levels of legislatures that govern us - but do we?

We have come to believe this because we are taught from an early age that we have government of the people; by the people; for the people and that all government authority is derived from the people; that is, the people delegate their individual authority to their representatives and their representatives use the authority that the people delegated to them to enact statutes to govern all of us. Is this true? That is, do the people as individuals actually have the authority to regulate all those things which their representatives purport to regulate on our behalf?

In their efforts to eradicate unsightly vulgar and offensive graffiti, many jurisdictions have enacted statutes which require the victims of such vandalism to remove, paint over or otherwise eradicate such graffiti within a specified time (usually 24 or 72 hours) or be cited and charged with a misdemeanor. Where does any legislative body get authority to enact such statutes? Do you, as an individual, have any authority to require any owner or occupant of property which property you have no ownership or other interest, to perform as these statutes purport to require or be subject to criminal prosecution? Can you imagine that any other individual has authority to impose such requirements or punishment? Isn’t it clearly ridiculous and totally unfair to enact a statute which purports to make a criminal out of the victim of graffiti vandals because the victim fails to clean up the vandals crimes? Of course the reasonable answer to all such questions is that there is no such authority and any such enactments are clearly null and void on their face - but reason not withstanding, there are many municipalities which have enacted and enforce such graffiti statutes and the innocent victims pay fines and/or costs of forced removal of the graffiti by municipal cleanup crews. Is it hard to imagine that there would be occasions where the homes of victims of such unbridled municipal authorities would be seized and sold when the victims were unable to pay the fines or cost of forced eradication?

How can this be? Such ridiculous enactments are the direct result of a wide spread misunderstanding and belief that under a democratic form of government there is no activity which cannot be regulated just so long as the advocates of the regulation thereof can convince "a majority" that some activity they personally find offensive ought to be regulated. After all - everyone "knows" - majority rules!! Or does it?

Lets be honest about it - what we have under this misconceived democratic process is nothing more than a sanitized version of mob rule.

Any reasonable analysis of the extent of the authority of each individual would be that each individual’s authority extends only over his own property and not one iota further. If I have no individual authority to do "it" to you, one on one; and you have no individual authority to do "it" to me, one on one, then neither of us nor anyone else has any authority to do it to anyone and none of us have any ability to delegate authority which we do not individually hold to any supposed representative.

The only place where the foregoing would not be applicable would be in municipal or similar jurisdictions, such as gated communities, where inhabitants are informed prior to their voluntary occupancy that there are restrictions as to what would otherwise be their naturally unrestricted activities where such conduct would directly impair the health, safety and peaceful environment of their neighbors. Even in municipalities however, the ability of the legislatures thereof to regulate the inhabitants would be restricted to those activities which directly adversely affected other inhabitants and would never include what the inhabitants did in the privacy of their own spaces. Such restrictions would include such items as noise, odors and sanitation but would not include a dress code or pet ownership (so long as the pets did not constitute an actual nuisance such as excessive barking or crowing or a sanitation problem).

As the forgoing analysis is irrefutably true, which is, that as none of us has any authority whatsoever to impose our personal will on others, then it reasonably follows that no one of us (nor all of us together) has any authority whatsoever which we can delegate to our representatives in order to give the government the authority to impose a tax on anyone, especially where the ultimate means of collection is the government’s gun. This requires a more honest definition of taxation, taxation is nothing but a sanitized version of armed robbery.

But, some will respond, the government needs money to operate and besides - taxation is authorized in the US Constitution and all of the constitutions of the fifty states, so does that not make taxation OK? Well, it was not all that long ago that almost everyone on the planet believed the world was flat and then we had the burning of witches in Salem and before that, in England, Protestants determined by the Catholic church to be heretics were burned at the stake during the reign of queen "Bloody" Mary. Just because something was included in the constitutions by the framers does not make it OK; if constitutional inclusion made things OK then why did we abolish slavery?

There is another much more reasonable source of funds to finance government which does not require coercion or confiscation of personal assets and which means is totally voluntary and is already in place, and therefore would not require any additional drain on the resources of those who are now the victims of the government’s armed robbery.

What it this means? Think about it and see if you can figure it out.

As the Thirteenth Amendment clearly forbids involuntary servitude, how can there be any imposition of taxation (any and all taxation) unless all those paying have in some way volunteered.

Read the Preamble to the US Constitution (who does it apply to? More important - who is excluded?). While carefully following and applying the rules of English grammar and punctuation, read the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments. Think about the definition of "republic", of "democracy", of "people", of "person", of "citizen of the United States", of “resident”.

Any fair analysis will reveal that democracy, as practiced in this place erroneously referred to as "America", totally sucks!!

The ONLY solution is to enforce The Plan against the N.W.O. perpetrators of 911 and reinstate God’s Law:-
( categories: )