democratic versus republican thinking

[Tribunal]

I've been studying what I believe to be the two major thoughts on government - the democratic persuasion and the republican pursuasion - and I'd like to know your opinion on the subject.

Those of the democratic persuasion believe that we are government (demos kratia) and we are all equal and government is a tool to ensure that equality. Those of the democratic persuasion believe that equality is justice. I believe a vast majority of our world's population support the democratic persuasion. They eat, drink, and breath government because government is involved in every aspect of their/our lives. They know of no other alternative and most cannot fathom a society free from government.

Those of the republican persuasion believe that we are, or should be, free from government (res publica) and that government can be a useful tool if ever called upon to secure our rights and establish justice. Those of the republican persuasion believe that justice is righting a wrong. I believe the Constitution for the United States supports the republican persuasion, but so few in our society are actually educated in the Constitution to understand its' proper purpose. Because of a lack of education in the Constitution most people believe the Constitution establishes our rights, not secures them.

But I have to wonder what persuasion would a person be in who's practicing the Law of Consecration? The democratic persuasion? Or the republican pursuasion? Please correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't those of the democratic persuasion be more in-line with the practice of the Law of Consecration? If it is the republican persuasion that's more in-line with the Law of Consecration then how do we convince, or convert, those of the democratic persuasion to accept a frame of mind more in-line with republican thinking? But, if those of the democratic persuasion are correct then how do we republican-thinkers change our ways without compromising our republican principles?

[Original_Intent]

You are making the common mistake of believing that socialism and the United Order are similar.

Always remember that government is FORCE. The law of consecration MUST be lived individually and voluntarily, NEVER thru force.

The democratic and republican thought as you have defined them each contain aspects of the law of consecration. The democratic ideal contains at least the inclination that we should have all things in common, but utterly fails because they do so thru forcible not voluntary redisribution.

The Republicans ideal is that government should leave you alone other than to defend the life, liberty and property of it's citizens.

In my opinion the Republic way is truly closer to living the law of consecration because under it it is at least POSSIBLE to live the law of consecration. It is impossible to do so in a Democratic society because it is impossible to consecrate what you do not have, and democratic socialism assumes common ownership of everything. (and of course it never lives up to its ideals because it ends up meaning control of everything by the "administrators".

[Tribunal]

You are making the common mistake of believing that socialism and the United Order are similar.

Always remember that government is FORCE. The law of consecration MUST be lived individually and voluntarily, NEVER thru force.

The democratic and republican thought as you have defined them each contain aspects of the law of consecration. The democratic ideal contains at least the inclination that we should have all things in common, but utterly fails because they do so thru forcible not voluntary redisribution.

The Republicans ideal is that government should leave you alone other than to defend the life, liberty and property of it's citizens.

In my opinion the Republic way is truly closer to living the law of consecration because under it it is at least POSSIBLE to live the law of consecration. It is impossible to do so in a Democratic society because it is impossible to consecrate what you do not have, and democratic socialism assumes common ownership of everything. (and of course it never lives up to its ideals because it ends up meaning control of everything by the "administrators".

Original Intent, I understand the differences between socialism and the United Order. I'm not talking about ownership of property or government forcing its' will upon us. I'm talking about our frame of mind when dealing with government. Should we consider ourselves members of government and intimately engaged in the Law of Consecration? Or should we consider ourselves free from government and free agents contracted with the Law of Consecration? Do you see the difference?

[Rincon]

Removed

[braingrunt]

Attempts at consecration early in the church show it was not a government social policy, or else we may have reason to suppose that it would not have died quietly. Rather it seems people just quit doing it.

[Original_Intent]

I can almost surely tell you why consecration/United Order living failed in the past. Because people felt like they were each doing more than anyone else, and felt that they were being taken advantage of. The problem being is people see everything that they themselves do, but even if they are very nosy busybodies, at best they only see a fraction of what other people do. Unless people completely abandon trying to keep a tally and just consecrate themselves to giving all that they have and with faith that others are doing their best to do the same, Satan will always have the tools needed to keep us from living it.

[7cylon7]

We need to think constitution vs everything else. NOT Rep vs Dem.

[Tribunal]

We need to think constitution vs everything else. NOT Rep vs Dem.

You need to read my initial post. I never mentioned anything about political parties. This has nothing to do with political parties. This really has nothing to do with liberals versus conservatives because those are modern terms and there is much confusion about them. And, to be honest, it has nothing to do with the Constitution because both democratic thinkers and republican thinkers can both agree with the usefulness of the Constitution.

My topic is about those who believe we the people are government (demos kratia) versus those who believe there is a separation between we the people and government (res publica). It is a state of mind. Right hand versus left hand.

[Cowboy]

I think it is a great question and some of the answers are missing the point of it.
My thoughts have always been, to understand the thought processes of both groups.... whatever you want to call them, you need to understand that liberals feel like that there is a FINITE amount of ?????? in the world. ( Insert time, talents, wealth and so on ) and that if someone has more than someone else that it is unfair. Modern Liberals will tell you that this extra must have been taken illegally or at least immorally. Thus, the government is a vehicle to even out the playing field BY evenly distributing the spoils. Everyone even, no on above another. And we all get along in the world because greed is now gone.
Conservatives believe that there is an INFINITE amount of resources in the world and one can produce, achieve, develop and enjoy to their highest capacity.
government just gets in the way. At that point they can bestow on those less fortunate in their efforts or abilities some of their possessions to make life better for them.
As far as the second part of the equation, In socialism, perceived extra is TAKEN from those who possess it to distribute to those that don't by people who hold that position because of a variety of reasons, most of which are tainted, and evil sprouts and flourishes.
In the Gospel we have Priesthood holders called by God and set apart with a special ability to see true needs and satisfy those needs with extra from those who freely given of their resources. Big difference!

[7cylon7]

We need to think constitution vs everything else. NOT Rep vs Dem.

You need to read my initial post. I never mentioned anything about political parties. This has nothing to do with political parties. This really has nothing to do with liberals versus conservatives because those are modern terms and there is much confusion about them. And, to be honest, it has nothing to do with the Constitution because both democratic thinkers and republican thinkers can both agree with the usefulness of the Constitution.

My topic is about those who believe we the people are government (demos kratia) versus those who believe there is a separation between we the people and government (res publica). It is a state of mind. Right hand versus left hand.

Like I said it is Constitutional Government VS everything else.

Read the "5000 Year Leap" then you will know what is right and what is wrong in governments.

Enjoy

[Tribunal]

We need to think constitution vs everything else. NOT Rep vs Dem.

You need to read my initial post. I never mentioned anything about political parties. This has nothing to do with political parties. This really has nothing to do with liberals versus conservatives because those are modern terms and there is much confusion about them. And, to be honest, it has nothing to do with the Constitution because both democratic thinkers and republican thinkers can both agree with the usefulness of the Constitution.

My topic is about those who believe we the people are government (demos kratia) versus those who believe there is a separation between we the people and government (res publica). It is a state of mind. Right hand versus left hand.

Like I said it is Constitutional Government VS everything else.

Read the "5000 Year Leap" then you will know what is right and what is wrong in governments.

Enjoy

I've read 5000 Year Leap and I believe all other books written by CS. That doesn't answer my question(s).

What does constitutional government versus everything else mean? Does that mean that we should consider ourselves part of that constitutional government (demos kratia) or should we consider that constitutional government separate from the people (res publica)?

[Tribunal]

I think it is a great question and some of the answers are missing the point of it.
My thoughts have always been, to understand the thought processes of both groups.... whatever you want to call them, you need to understand that liberals feel like that there is a FINITE amount of ?????? in the world. ( Insert time, talents, wealth and so on ) and that if someone has more than someone else that it is unfair. Modern Liberals will tell you that this extra must have been taken illegally or at least immorally. Thus, the government is a vehicle to even out the playing field BY evenly distributing the spoils. Everyone even, no on above another. And we all get along in the world because greed is now gone.
Conservatives believe that there is an INFINITE amount of resources in the world and one can produce, achieve, develop and enjoy to their highest capacity.
government just gets in the way. At that point they can bestow on those less fortunate in their efforts or abilities some of their possessions to make life better for them.
As far as the second part of the equation, In socialism, perceived extra is TAKEN from those who possess it to distribute to those that don't by people who hold that position because of a variety of reasons, most of which are tainted, and evil sprouts and flourishes.
In the Gospel we have Priesthood holders called by God and set apart with a special ability to see true needs and satisfy those needs with extra from those who freely given of their resources. Big difference!

THANK YOU!!! You understand my point!

So do you believe a conversion is needed between the democratic and republican thoughts processes just as a conversion in Christ is needed? Interesting! That's really interesting because we consider ourselves as members of the Church (demos kratia-thinking), and not separate from the Church (res publica-thinking). Wouldn't that also mean that the appropriate frame of mind for those in Zion, the United Order, the Law of Consecration would be as a member (demos kratia) and not separate (res publica)? If that's the case then aren't those who call themselves conservative or libertarian engaged in the wrong frame of mind?

[Original_Intent]

and yet, people go crazy in congregations (demos kratia thinking) but they only get better one at a time (res publica thinking)

We are told that no one is saved alone (demos cratia) and yet...and yet salvation is indeed something VERY much based on your individual agency and ultimately it is up to you alone to be saved or not (res publica)

Maybe we really need to learn to not let our left hand know what our right hand is doing?

[1984Orwellherenow]

THANK YOU!!! You understand my point!

So do you believe a conversion is needed between the democratic and republican thoughts processes just as a conversion in Christ is needed? Interesting! That's really interesting because we consider ourselves as members of the Church (demos kratia-thinking), and not separate from the Church (res publica-thinking). Wouldn't that also mean that the appropriate frame of mind for those in Zion, the United Order, the Law of Consecration would be as a member (demos kratia) and not separate (res publica)? If that's the case then aren't those who call themselves conservative or libertarian engaged in the wrong frame of mind?

Dudes, it's a balancing act between the two. These opposing forces result in the equilibrium that has allowed the nation to last as long as it has. We aren't a feudal society and we aren't anarchists either. It takes a community, and hopefully we respect those around us. United Order will be pretty similar (each according to his wants and needs). Cool huh, dudes!