Raving Conservative


Sunday, August 27, 2006

Excerpt From my New Book: Reality Check: Chapter on Governments

Here is one fourth of the chapter on government systems in my new book of politics and philosophy. I would love some feedback.

Government has been both a boon and a plague to mankind ever since localized human populations have grown large enough to require them. A look at all existing government systems reveals three essential government archetypes that all existing governments are founded on. These government types are Democracy, Monarchy, and Dictatorships. Many people include a fourth type: a Tyranny. However, I do not include this as an individual governmental type because all of the governmental types I have listed have the potential to be tyrannous. A close inspection reveals that all three government types have their good and bad points.

Democracy is the currently favored governmental type of freedom loving people everywhere, and for good reason. Whether a representative democracy, true democracy, or parliamentary democracy, it gives the people the greatest possible chance to effect and guide their nation along the paths they see most fit. Out of all possible government types this is the only one that truly gives power to the people. Many others have claimed to give power to the people, but all have proven themselves to give power only to the one, or at best, the very few elite.

Democracies, more than any other type of government, reveal the true heart of the people. The people will only vote for leaders that they trust to enforce their will and follow their vision. This is always a good thing for everyone for two primary reasons. First is that as long as the elected representatives are doing what they are expected to do the people are generally content and are happy to let the government do its job with minimal interference. This is an excellent situation for domestic tranquility. Second is that other nations around the world are given an opportunity to see the hearts of the people in their most naked form.

People often make the mistake of believing that if the people are given a voice that the will always choose peace and freedom. This is patently untrue. In Palestine Hamas was elected into power by an overwhelming majority. Hamas exists for one reason: to murder Israelis and keep murdering them until there are no more Jews in Israel and all of Israel is placed under Islamic rule. The Fatah party had the same exact vision, but it failed to deliver on its promise, so it was replaced with an even more extreme terrorist group as the ruling faction in Palestine.

The reason this is all good news is that it bares the soul of the Palestinian people to the world in all its dark and twisted glory for the entire world to see for the very first time. No longer are we left to speculate that if only the people were given a voice that they may choose peace over terror. Now we know beyond all doubt that the Palestinian people want war, they want terror, and they want it now. Now we have the privilege of adjusting our own behavior toward them according to the truth as has been revealed by the people of Palestine.

Of course, only the foolish and the ignorant failed to se this outcome from miles away. History is riddled with people electing representatives who advocated violence, oppression, and even open war. Winston Churchill became the Prime Minister of Great Brittan because he advocated war with the Nazis rather than a peaceful surrender. George W. Bush was elected President of the United States for a second term because the people trusted him to continue and manage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan more than they wanted John Kerry to put an end to the whole thing. Racist whites used to elect prominent members of the Ku Klux Klan to the US Congress because they wanted to continue to oppress blacks.

Knowing this to be true it is pure foolishness to assume that giving people a free democracy and allowing the self rule it creates is a magical formula for peace. The only guarantee democracy gives is the guarantee that the people will elect representatives who share their vision for their country. God help us if that vision is evil.

Democracies must, and do enact systems of checks and balances. Without these checks and balances every democracy degrades and ultimately becomes a dictatorship. To keep power in the hands of the people there must be a system in lace to prevent one or a few people from seizing power and overthrowing the government from within. There are two vital branches that absolutely must be in place. There must a legislative branch of government, and there must be an independent judicial branch of government. An executive branch has proven to be successful, but is not absolutely mandatory.

Regardless of any promises made in the Constitution of a democracy, or any government type, if the judiciary is not empowered to enforce the Constitution as well as the laws then there is an unhealthy imbalance in the government which will ultimately result in every right of the people being stripped away and it will become a tyranny.

A natural consequence of an independent judiciary is the unfortunate tendency of some judges to become drunk on power and unaccountability and to start inserting personal views and wishes into constitutional rulings. There should be a system in place for the swift removal of judges who do this because they always wind up undermining the constitution by single-handedly changing it to suit their own personal desires.

Such a system would have to be very strict and subject to much review before it could be enforced because of the tendency of the politicians to simply remove judges they do not like. It must be a difficult system, but it must be in place and it must be used.

A prime example of this problem is the Kelo decision made by the US Supreme Court. There is a clear right to property listed n the US Constitution, however, Kelo is in direct violation of this right because it enables the government to seize personal property, not for government use, but for transfer to other private parties the government would rather have occupying that property.

This violation of the US Constitution is possible because the checks on the judicial system are very weak. While there is a process for impeaching judges it is only used to impeach judges who commit felonies. All else is left to Constitutional amendments, which cannot possibly happen in response to every single court ruling that violates the Constitution. There must be a carefully implemented system in place to remove judges who issue rulings that are in clear violation of the Constitution or else the Judges will rule any way they want to regardless of the law itself, and regardless of the Constitution. The US Constitution allows for such a system, but it has never been put in place and used. As a result there are five judges sitting on the US Supreme Court who should be removed for violating their sworn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution by declaring government seizure of private land for unlawful transfer to another private entity is actually lawful.

As people who live in long established now know, there is a peculiar drawback to democracy. The drawback is what happens when people realize that that they can vote entitlements to themselves through their elected representatives.

Let’s face it. We all like to get something for nothing. Some of us rely on getting something for nothing just to survive. So when we hear a politician promising to give more of what we want the temptation to put that person into power is very strong. As we get more entitlements, we get lazier, and we want more entitlements, so we vote for even more people who promise us even more. Given time we grow accustomed to these new entitlements and grow lazier and demand even more. It’s a vicious circle, and one that has annoyed fiscal conservatives ever since it was first realized.

The natural result of this entitlement voting a greater financial burden on the government, which in turn puts a greater financial burden on the productive members of that society. It also drives national debt upwards at an alarming as expensive social programs become even more expensive, new expensive social programs are created, and people start voting against the taxes necessary to maintain them all. Why vote against the taxes? Because we all hate to have our hard earned money taken away from us and placing a greater financial burden on ourselves. This creates another vicious circle where the people in a democracy vote to get more, but not to give more in order to properly finance what they want to get.

In the end one of two things must break: the expensive social programs, or the budget. A society can survive having government charity removed because people are often remarkably generous with their money when they have it to give away privately. However, a society cannot survive an overwhelming burden of debt. History has shown that nations that go too far into debt have always collapsed.

Another common idea shared by people in Democratic societies is that they are “free” and that other governments must be replaced with democracies in order to “free” the people. This comes from a belief that democracy is somehow inherently superior to other forms of government. While democracy is frequently better than certain other governments, it is not always the case.

Democracies have a tendency to become overly bureaucratic and cumbersome. They become slow to respond because the channels set up to handle problems become ridiculously long and ridiculously choked with red tape. Every inch of red tape clogging the system was put there in response to problems in the past as an attempt to fix it. The result is that the problem may or may nit actually be fixed, but the process becomes more cumbersome. Red tape is rarely ever removed once it is put in place. In a democracy it is far easier to enact rules, regulation, and create positions and responsibilities than it is to remove them. Creating looks responsive and responsible to the voting public, undoing means admitting a mistake and possibly undermining the people’s trust and confidence in the abilities of their leaders.

Of course, an overburdened, overly cumbersome bureaucratic system also makes the people unhappy as it winds up putting an undue burden on them. However, it is an interesting phenomenon that it is frequently safer for a representative to leave the bureaucracy alone than to try to streamline it. This is because the people know that the red tape is there for a reason, they may not know or remember the reason, but they know that it probably was put in place to fix a problem that they wanted fixed.

Democracy is easily the most complex governmental system in existence today. With its ever changing body of politicians, ever increasing regulation, and vital system of checks and balances, without which any democracy will fail, it is a huge undertaking for any nation to perform.
Democracies are based on trust. As long as the people trust their democracy to look out for them they allow the democracy to continue. However, when trust is lost the people either vote in a new group of people or they revolt and install a new government system. We have seen this happen time and time again, and in every instance so far the democracy has been replaced with a dictatorship.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

This One's So Juicy I Just Could't Contain Myself

Okay, this is not what I promised, bu it's early, which makes this a bonus and the promised article will be here Monday.

Has anyone else been wonderinwhy we haven't been hearing about the Massachusetts gay marriage ordeal lately? I believe I know why.

A friend of mine from Massachusetts has just informed me that the Massachusetts Supreme Court was overruled by the people. That's right. We aren;t hearing more about it because the voters said the court was wrong.

This is unverified, and it is just the word of one Massachusetts man, but it does explain things. It also begs another question: Why didn't the news report it?

Why indeed. Why wouldn't the liberal media tell everyone that Masachusetts, the same state that requires parents to sign a contract stating that their children will not engage in discrimination against homosexuals, they can discriminate against everyone apparently, only discrimination against homosexuals is banned by the contract, voted down gay marriage? Could it be, oh, I dunno . . . liberal bias? Methinks it might!

The court decision was monumental, it was trumpeted nonstop for months, and this vote was equally monumental because it it struck down the monumental decision and established that the true power still belongs to the voter when the voter cares enough to go out and vote. As such it should have been blasted acros the airwaves for all to see and hear. Instead, it was allowed topass unnoticed. Such is the nature of the information system that seeks to influence and change American thought and attitudes. It's a tragedy.

Of course, my friend could have simply ben full of it too. If anyone can verify this one way or the other I am open to the full facts. I for one, am simply voicing my thoughts right now.

Monday, August 21, 2006


I have been offline for quite some time now, and I think I owe everyone an explanation. Therefore, I shall lay out every excuse for my (temporary) inactivity.

1: I have been getting started in a new carreer in the insurance business as an AFLAC representative, which has required me to do a great deal of studying.

2: I have returned to college to finish off the last few classes I need in order to get my Bachelor's Degree. I shall be done no later than December.

3: I have been caring for my wife and preparing my home for our son's arrival in December.

4: I have been working a new book. It is my first work of nonfiction and was inspired by blogging. I figured that if I can spend all that time researching and writing for a blog then I could do it, write some more in-depth essays than people generally read on blogs, and possibly get it published.

5: I found myself getting so incredibly wrapped up in staying current and analyzing everything that I decided it would be best for me if I took an extended break from blogging anyway. I am not Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. I do not make my living this way (even though I would LOVE to do what they do), and I am still (in my opinion) fairly new to such activities.

Finally, until at least January I shall be blogging once weekly. My new posts will be going up every Monday, if something comes up and I simply cannot restrain myself there will be other articles popping up here and there, but Monday will be the day for new articles as a general rule. As you can see form the list posted above, I have very good reasons for scaling back my blogging activities.

I want to apologize to all of my regular readers for not posting this sooner and for the reduction in articles that will remain for several more months. My next article (to be posted next Monday) will be an excerpt from my new book so you can all get a taste of it. I shall actually post several excerpts over the coming months because I truly do value the feedback of my readers.

I also want to thank you all for your concern. It warms my heart to know you care enough to keep checking back and posting your speculation as to my fate. :)

This said, God bless you all and thank you for your continued readership.

Listed on BlogShares