Over at David Codrea's War on Guns a poster named Hypnagogue enunciates a simple home truth as the Founders saw it:
Why would anyone ever sacrifice their lives for a democracy? The whole point of sacrificing your life implies commitment to a higher purpose or principle. Democracies don't have principles -- they have elections. Thankfully, we don't live in a democracy; we live in a Republic.
I would happily lay down my life to defend this Republic, but that's because the Liberty guaranteed by this Republic is my children's birthright, and despising one's birthright is beyond contemptible.
But I would never die for a democracy that could vote that Liberty into non-existence on the judgment of a simple majority. That's beyond absurd.
7 comments:
"Why would anyone ever sacrifice their lives for a democracy? The whole point of sacrificing your life implies commitment to a higher purpose or principle."
Duty (from "due," that which is owing, Lat. debere, debitum; cf. "debt") is a term that conveys a sense of moral commitment to someone or something. The moral commitment is the sort that results in action, and it is not a matter of passive feeling or mere recognition. When someone recognizes a duty, that person commits himself/herself to the cause involved without considering the self-interested courses of actions that may have been relevant previously. This is not to suggest that living a life of duty precludes one from the best sort of life, but duty does involve some sacrifice of immediate self-interest.
I have never seen or heard a liberal who understood duty, because everything a liberal does is about their own feelings and in their own self interest.
"The coward (liberal) is the one who lets his fear
overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood."
George S. Patton
This is why a liberal cannot understand the essence or mindset of a warrior. Or why some things are worth living and dying for.
"I would happily lay down my life to defend this Republic, but that's because the Liberty guaranteed by this Republic is my children's birthright, and despising one's birthright is beyond contemptible."
But being free of the duty of understanding and defending the sacrifices of those who came before you allows contempt. For there is no touchstone of what is right and good, only what is in it for me. And that is the essence of "democracy" and is why we are where we are today. That is why Obama has no right to stand on much less deny anyone else to visit the hollowed ground of Colleville-Sur-Mer this June 6th. Because he just does not get it.
Duty. Honor. Family. Country. Is there anything else worth living and dying for?.
North America has had a democracy ever since the Founding Aristocrats claimed that a majority vote could sell a minority into slavery under a "constitution". The ratification was democracy, unfettered by any limitations, and the public knew it: "A lady asked Dr. Franklin, 'Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?'" Any process that could have arrived at a monarchy was not itself a republic. Your implied virgin birth story for the State isn't true.
There is no Republic, only Zuhl..er, Democracy.
If voting made an ounce of difference it would be illegal.
that may be true, but those who do believe our form of government to be a democracy also don't see the work they do as a sacrifice.
secession never looked better.
That's the most insightful description of the difference between a democracy and a republic that I've ever heard!
Well said, Anonymous I. The aristocracy is still at it. A constitutional republic is still, after these centuries, a goal, not present or past history.
Someone said we should run for office. I said GREAT candidates DO, but the media never mention them. All you need is a million dollars and a million supporters who are millionaires, and you're "news." It's an exclusive club.
I have and will sacrifice for the IDEALS of a constitutional republic, for the ASPIRATIONS TOWARD one.
Mohandas Gandhi, asked about Western civilization, said "It would be a good idea."
I have and will sacrifice for the IDEALS of a constitutional republic, for the ASPIRATIONS TOWARD one.I am only willing to sacrifice for the personal liberty of myself, my family, and my close friends. Being willing to sacrifice for any larger group leaves me vulnerable to be mislead by some false "duty to the collective".
The aristocracy is still at it. A constitutional republic is still, after these centuries, a goal, not present or past history.I see those centuries as containing many experimental tests, and the results are that the 'constitutional republic' idea has failed. Groundbreaking economic and political analysis in the last hundred years has shown that all known political ideas have failed. You cannot gain liberty through politics -- politics is precisely the opposite of liberty. Giving up some liberties to protect others is exactly like making love to conserve virginity.
Post a Comment