Republic?

[Thomas]

So the danger (ABSENT OF A DARK AGE) is we move toward a totalitarian state, and ultimately toward revolution whereby we create a real democracy for once rather than a republic that devolves into an oligarchy with career politicians. NO REPUBLIC has ever resisted the path to oligarchy and that is the real danger we face. The question becomes how far down this historical path do we go? The path is well worn. The markers are clear and never change.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/date/2016/01" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ezra]

So the danger (ABSENT OF A DARK AGE) is we move toward a totalitarian state, and ultimately toward revolution whereby we create a real democracy for once rather than a republic that devolves into an oligarchy with career politicians. NO REPUBLIC has ever resisted the path to oligarchy and that is the real danger we face. The question becomes how far down this historical path do we go? The path is well worn. The markers are clear and never change.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/date/2016/01" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe he meant no republic has ever stayed one because of wickedness which caused a democracy which lead to its own destruction.

[isaacs2066]

Democracies are usually as violent in suicide as they are tyrannical and schizophrenic in life...

[Thomas]

So the danger (ABSENT OF A DARK AGE) is we move toward a totalitarian state, and ultimately toward revolution whereby we create a real democracy for once rather than a republic that devolves into an oligarchy with career politicians. NO REPUBLIC has ever resisted the path to oligarchy and that is the real danger we face. The question becomes how far down this historical path do we go? The path is well worn. The markers are clear and never change.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/date/2016/01" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe he meant no republic has ever stayed one because of wickedness which caused a democracy which lead to its own destruction.

I don't think that is what he means. He means when you let a small group dictate the laws of a country, it always goes bad. Power corrupts. Republics never lead to democracy. They lead to dictatorships. (Think Rome). The more you spread the power, the better off the country will be.

We have been brainwashed into this republic is better than democracy BS. It stems from the notion that the uneducated, poor people are mobs and letting them have a say in their own destiny is mob rule. That is one the founding principles of the USA.

The D&C tells us, almost all men will abuse power, if given power. So why do we keep backing this flawed ideal?

[Ezra]

So the danger (ABSENT OF A DARK AGE) is we move toward a totalitarian state, and ultimately toward revolution whereby we create a real democracy for once rather than a republic that devolves into an oligarchy with career politicians. NO REPUBLIC has ever resisted the path to oligarchy and that is the real danger we face. The question becomes how far down this historical path do we go? The path is well worn. The markers are clear and never change.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/date/2016/01" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe he meant no republic has ever stayed one because of wickedness which caused a democracy which lead to its own destruction.

I don't think that is what he means. He means when you let a small group dictate the laws of a country, it always goes bad. Power corrupts. Republics never lead to democracy. They lead to dictatorships. (Think Rome). The more you spread the power, the better off the country will be.

We have been brainwashed into this republic is better than democracy BS. It stems from the notion that the uneducated, poor people are mobs and letting them have a say in their own destiny is mob rule. That is one the founding principles of the USA.

The D&C tells us, almost all men will abuse power, if given power. So why do we keep backing this flawed ideal?

We don't have a republic in USA. We used to.

A democracy is worse. As mob rule is always a bad idea.

Rome started as a republic. Which is why it prospered. Then went into a democracy. And the. To a dictator.

USA seems to be following suit. We just swap out dictators every 4-8 years.

Liberty holds hands with anarchy. Vs Liberty and tyranny.

Republics are supposed to be just off anarchy. With a a very limited set of powers given to government. Those powers are supposed to give the government only the powers needed to keep the people Liberty in place. It's supposed to protects all peoples freedoms.

Where a democracy only protects 51% the others are screwed by the majority.

The USA a democratic oligarchy. Not a republic.

[Separatist]

NO REPUBLIC has ever resisted the path to oligarchy and that is the real danger we face.

The Swiss model seems to be quite durable. It also helps not to have a maniac (Lincoln) wage war on his own citizens to crush the sovereignty of the states and their right to govern and secede. Jeffersonian republicanism was meant to be small political units, with human scale governance and representation. As they grew large, there would be continual dividing and sub-dividing, maintaining the human scale and organic self-governance of communities.

I highly recommend the book, Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century
http://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Americ ... 1589809572" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is akin to the Congregationalist model originally planned for the church. Kind of a loose federation of autonomous, self-directing communities.

I also highly recommend this talk on Jeffersonian republicanism:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?316075-1/t ... ublicanism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ezra]

So the danger (ABSENT OF A DARK AGE) is we move toward a totalitarian state, and ultimately toward revolution whereby we create a real democracy for once rather than a republic that devolves into an oligarchy with career politicians. NO REPUBLIC has ever resisted the path to oligarchy and that is the real danger we face. The question becomes how far down this historical path do we go? The path is well worn. The markers are clear and never change.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/date/2016/01" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe he meant no republic has ever stayed one because of wickedness which caused a democracy which lead to its own destruction.

I don't think that is what he means. He means when you let a small group dictate the laws of a country, it always goes bad. Power corrupts. Republics never lead to democracy. They lead to dictatorships. (Think Rome). The more you spread the power, the better off the country will be.

We have been brainwashed into this republic is better than democracy BS. It stems from the notion that the uneducated, poor people are mobs and letting them have a say in their own destiny is mob rule. That is one the founding principles of the USA.

The D&C tells us, almost all men will abuse power, if given power. So why do we keep backing this flawed ideal?

Unrighteous dominon as spoken about in D&c 121. Is speaking about using your power to force others. Which can happen in any government where laws are created.



It's about forcing others to be good vs using gods methods which are defined in 121:41-43.

Laws that are unrighteous dominion would be like welfare. Forcing people to take care of the sick needy elderly.
Doing it on your own is great. Using the force of government makes it evil. Same with law that force morality or sobriety.

Being moral and sober are great. Teaching morality and sobriety if done as D&c 121:41-43 says is great.
Using force of government makes it bad.

Don't confuse that with your right to protect yourself or have the ability to bring justice on someone for harm caused to you.

[isaacs2066]

So the danger (ABSENT OF A DARK AGE) is we move toward a totalitarian state, and ultimately toward revolution whereby we create a real democracy for once rather than a republic that devolves into an oligarchy with career politicians. NO REPUBLIC has ever resisted the path to oligarchy and that is the real danger we face. The question becomes how far down this historical path do we go? The path is well worn. The markers are clear and never change.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/date/2016/01" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I believe he meant no republic has ever stayed one because of wickedness which caused a democracy which lead to its own destruction.

I don't think that is what he means. He means when you let a small group dictate the laws of a country, it always goes bad. Power corrupts. Republics never lead to democracy. They lead to dictatorships. (Think Rome). The more you spread the power, the better off the country will be.

We have been brainwashed into this republic is better than democracy BS. It stems from the notion that the uneducated, poor people are mobs and letting them have a say in their own destiny is mob rule. That is one the founding principles of the USA.

The D&C tells us, almost all men will abuse power, if given power. So why do we keep backing this flawed ideal?

The problem is you do not define your terms.

Republic - the government is limited by constitutional law, the U.S. is a very good example.

Democracy - the government is not limited by law, the U.K. is a very good example as parliament can literally do whatever it wants (theoretically).

A republic or a democracy can both be either direct where everyone gets a vote or representative where elected leaders get a vote.

The squeeze is that in a democracy whoever gets to make laws either the whole people as in a direct democracy or lawmakers as in a representative democracy can do whatever they want if they have a majority.

Fifty one percent of whoever makes the laws can literally have the other forty nine percent killed.

The only governments I can think of where this is actually true is the PRC or DPRK.

Although again even those real democracies are not direct but representative.

So it seems to me you are not advocating democracy but rather some form of direct republic where the people would have much more say (direct) but where the majority would still be barred from oppressing the minority (republic).

[Thomas]

Ya, I always hear this story about how 51 percent can have 49 percent killed off. That may be true but right now our government runs on the vote of a few hundred people. So a few hundred people can have hundreds of millions killed.

It is easy to corrupt and buy a few hundred people if you have a lot of money.

[Thomas]

Calling democracy " mob rule" plays right into the hands of the elite class. It comes from the time when only rich property owners had the right to vote as in the House of Lords. They considered the uneducated masses as the "mob". Thus the term mob rule.

The mob needed smart men to rule over them because they are too stupid to make decisions for themselves and would likely vote the Lords out of their exalted status.

[Ezra]

Calling democracy " mob rule" plays right into the hands of the elite class. It comes from the time when only rich property owners had the right to vote as in the House of Lords. They considered the uneducated masses as the "mob". Thus the term mob rule.

The mob needed smart men to rule over them because they are too stupid to make decisions for themselves and would likely vote the Lords out of their exalted status.

You mean they only need 51% to vote the rest of the 49% of ignorant people into bondage to pay for the 51% to live comfortable lives.

[Thomas]

Calling democracy " mob rule" plays right into the hands of the elite class. It comes from the time when only rich property owners had the right to vote as in the House of Lords. They considered the uneducated masses as the "mob". Thus the term mob rule.

The mob needed smart men to rule over them because they are too stupid to make decisions for themselves and would likely vote the Lords out of their exalted status.

You mean they only need 51% to vote the rest of the 49% of ignorant people into bondage to pay for the 51% to live comfortable lives.

Right now, 535 congressmen, 100 senators, 1 president, a handful of judges and various other bureaucrats force millions into bondage so they and a few cronies can live a comfortable life.

Give me 51 percent instead of .001 percent.

[Darren]

("The Story of Rights in America" by Bruce Wydner pp. 21-25)
http://s98822910.onlinehome.us/thousand ... merica.pdf

Our Origin

Our USA originated from a tiny Republic in England that has had an annually elected “president,” along with a “senate” and a “house of representatives,” since about 450 AD, nearly exactly as long before the Magna Carta as the Magna Carta is before us in the late Twentieth Century. (One could call it, “a republic” or, as was more common, “an independent ‘city-state’“ etc.; however, all of those words are Italian words; and this entity is NOT an Italian organization by any stretch of the imagination. It is the quintessential “Anglo-Saxon” organization and is, in a number of ways, instructively designated an Anglo-Saxon Common-WEALTH. “Wealth” is an Anglo-Saxon word. We designate it a “Commonwealth” in the rest of this Story.)

From that day around 450 AD when it was founded to this day when you read this, this tiny Commonwealth has been completely independent of the Monarchs of England and of their Parliaments. On land the Commonwealth only occupies a total of 677 acres, but that land is the choice harbor location of the Island of Britain.

A visit to this ancient harbor Commonwealth today finds it “the Financial District” of Britain, of Europe, and, indeed, of the entire World. It bustles with some 500,000 Investment Bankers during working days. At night and on weekends it has about 5,000 caretakers that are its permanent population. It is estimated that about 80% of all of the gold that is sold in the world is sold there on these 677 acres. As mentioned earlier, some say that its Bond Market does a greater dollar volume in seventy days than all other bond markets in the world — along with all of the stock exchanges in the world (including the New York Stock Exchange) thrown in with them — do in an entire year.

As the Financial Capital of a renewed European Union, with its immediate service area of some 500,000,000 (as of 2008) hardworking, industrialized people, this 677-acre Commonwealth has recaptured its role of the Nineteenth Century as “the Financial Capital of the World.”

As we think of the origin of our Country, the USA, from this harbor Commonwealth, we, of course, all understand that our Forefathers who settled English-speaking North America got here from England on ocean-going SHIPS. And, that brings up the central point in the story of the Origin of the USA that people in general never seem to get to hear about.

From the time of the Crusades the “Navy” of the ocean-going ships that controlled Trade on the North Atlantic Ocean was not the navy of any feudal “cavalry” commander, such as kings were. They operated on land, not on the high seas. Command of the ships on Europe’s sea lanes was by the Christian Navy of the victorious Christian Side of the Crusades. The Christian Navy of Europe operated out of fortifications built at the best Harbors of Europe. In these fortifications the Christian Navy conducted its activities as a union of commonwealths, in the exact same way that the people of the Northern Colonies/States have conducted, or have tried to conduct, the activities of the USA down till this day.

Kings and their feudal cavalries could attack many things in a land where they were located. However, if they were foolish enough to attack one of these Sea Trade Fortified Commonwealths, the entire Navy from all of the others could descend upon their local holdings and destroy them — as happened at the Conquest of England, when 100 vessels from Normandy, 100 from Belgium, and 300 from Oslo, Norway descended upon England. The 300 from Norway decimated the Anglo-Danish Army at Stamford Bridge, near York, before its bedraggled survivors made their way south to Hastings where they were finally destroyed by the contingents from the 100 ships from Normandy and 100 ships from Belgium.

It was many years after the establishment of the original English Commonwealths along our Atlantic Coast before the Kings of England were able to seize control over the sea-going vessels of England’s ancient Harbor Commonwealth and call those ships, “the King’s ‘Royal Navy.’“ Harking back to those days when they were operated by England’s independent Harbor Commonwealth, with little or no contact with any English “Monarch,” the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia had insisted, through centuries, that they be formally dealt with as English “Commonwealths”; and being dealt with by the Italian word, “State,” has always been wrong in Massachusetts. Pennsylvania was founded at the time that the King of England took over control of the ancient English Commonwealth Navy, but it too prefers to be designated a “Commonwealth” rather than a “State.” In a similar way, the “Commonwealth of Kentucky” was the westward extension to the Mississippi River of the Colony or “the Commonwealth of Virginia.” It too chose to maintain this ancient Anglo-Saxon designation.

So, again, from before the time of the Crusades down until the time of the founding of the first English Commonwealths along our Atlantic Coast, all of the best Harbors around Europe’s Northern Seas have been the sites of highly fortified Commonwealths, each operating exactly like these first American Commonwealths, that are our origin here, began operating.

From London, in the west (our 677-acre Commonwealth in England), to Novgorod, Russia, in the east, from Bergen, Norway and Stockholm, Sweden, in the north, to such German-speaking cities as Cologne, Hamburg, Lubeck, Danzig etc., to the south, this brotherhood of Christian Harbor Commonwealths has controlled the Trade of Northern Europe since before the Crusades and, as was mentioned before, produced and gave to the world its glorious way of doing Business, by which the world today tries to conduct its Business, which way of doing Business is called, around the World, today: “The Free Enterprise System.”

Our first American English Commonwealths, therefore, were formed as they were to be precise copies of the Harbor Commonwealths of this Brotherhood of Commonwealths in Northern Europe (specifically like its member that was our parent Commonwealth in England of London) which completely controlled all trade on the North Atlantic Ocean up until about 1600, and still completely dominated those Waters until the end of the 1600’s, after the time when our first American English Commonwealths were begun.

“But, still,” one might ask, “why did the Founders of Our Way of Life here in this Land have to be SO idealistic as to put all of us into this so ‘mentally precarious’ a predicament that the ONLY END of Connecticut put all of those into who flocked to the mental position of ‘the only “Republic” at the Constitutional Convention,’ either during or right after the struggle of our Revolution, that New England began at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts?”

The American Revolution was “organized” first in New England by the subsequent Governor of Massachusetts, Samuel Adams. His famous entreaties to the leading officers of Government in England were to plead the case for the ancient Anglo-Saxon features of the North American Commonwealths, such as Massachusetts was. Earlier, when the Kings of England had no Navy that was their “Royal Navy,” the King had tried to assuage the Dutch-speaking leaders of the Hanseatic Navy, that dominated the North Atlantic, that “the United Colonies of New England” ― that had confederated themselves by the World’s Second Written Constitution, “the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual League of the United Colonies of New England,” the model for the “First Organic Law of the USA,” “the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union of the United States of America” ― was just the exact same thing as those leaders of the Hanseatic “League” had inaugurated about a century earlier, in 1579, as they organized their novelty for a sovereign European Land, which they called, “the United Provinces of the Netherlands.” In those days England’s Kings had told those Dutch-speaking leaders of Europe’s most powerful Navy, “Our ONLY END, forever, in creating ‘the United Colonies of New England’ is YOUR ‘ONLY END’: to practice the ancient Free Enterprise System of Christian Europe’s Crusades Navy in such a way that people around the world will be won to want to worship the God of Christianity!”

By the time of the American Revolution the Kings of England, following the policies of the Bank of England since 1694, had been fudging so tremendously on the ONLY END of their former intentions in establishing the English North American Commonwealths that by then they had demoted all of them, including Massachusetts, all of the way down to being their fools of “Royal” Colonies (or the “Proprietary” Colonies that were owned by the favorites of Britain’s Royalty and of the Bank of England), excepting Connecticut and Rhode Island. (Rhode Island did not attend the US Constitutional Convention.)

So, it was to Connecticut’s status and role that “the Patriots” flocked, to stand with Samuel Adams as he reminded the King of England and the British Government of their former “ONLY END” in authorizing the beginning of the North American English Commonwealths. Then, it was also to that same status and same role that disingenuous partisans of the Bank of England, operating its holdings in the new Southern “States,” two-facedly urged that all of the new States go out to, onto that “mentally precarious limb” of Connecticut, to all unite themselves by a Written Constitution that is a general amplification for the whole Land as that for which Connecticut’s had served as for one part of this Land.

However, if one looks at the motive of the man and his Group who had the most to immediately gain from the establishment of Connecticut, and the rest of the origin of the US North along with it, in the precise way that they established it, it might be argued that that man and his Group may not have been idealistic at all in establishing them in that way.

Robert Rich, the Earl of Warwick, was the Lord High Admiral of England during the early and mid 1600’s, the time of the events we are considering. He was also the President of the New England Company. The Land “owned” by the New England Company included all land in North America from Philadelphia (on the 40th Parallel) to the beginning of the Quebec Coast (the 48th Parallel) and all land in between these two Parallels across the Continent of North America from the Atlantic Coast to the Pacific Coast. (The 48th Parallel on the Pacific Coast is the location of Everett, Washington, a short distance north of Seattle. The 40th Parallel on the Pacific Coast is halfway between the northern part of San Francisco Bay and the California/Oregon State Line.)

In his own name Robert Rich owned all of the land in North America between the 41st and 42nd Parallels, from the Atlantic Coast to the Pacific Coast — the “Colony of Connecticut.”

He gave this land to his fellow Parishioners, in their Parish of Chelmsford, Essexshire, if they would cross the Atlantic and there set up the Parish of Hartford, Connecticut, and the Colony of Connecticut along with it, in the manner in which he needed them to be organized.

In 1618 the land forces of Southern Europe, under Catholicism, organized themselves to militarily attack the Protestant Powers of Northern Europe. Their main objective was to destroy the Commonwealths that made up the Hanseatic League. After thirty years, by 1648, their “Thirty Years War” had rendered the ancient Hansa moribund, although it adherents, the Dutch, still remained the main Naval Power of the North Atlantic till the end of the 1600’s.

After 1620, when the New England Company was founded in England, the Lord High Admiral of England knew that if he could rush about 20,000 people, from the fishing area of Old England from which he operated, across the North Atlantic, during the decade of the 1630’s, to colonize the entire coastline of the Fisheries of the North American Continental Shelf, the Grand Banks Fisheries that were the primary reason for cross-North-Atlantic Trade, when the Thirty Years War was over our Navy of English Speakers would eventually replace that of the Hansa as the Major Naval Power in the North Atlantic and that English Speakers would thereafter rule the Seas of the World, as we do till this day.

However, during the remainder of the 1600’s what remained of the Dutch-speaking Hansa’s Navy from the Netherlands was still the most powerful Navy on the North Atlantic and could easily have blown our feeble cross-Atlantic Carrying Trade right out of the water, to the extent THAT WE WERE NOT THEM. So we organized ourselves EXACTLY like them, or at least like their ancient Hanseatic “Kontor” for England of London, which they had operated down until the late 1500’s.

Robert Rich was the wealthiest property owner of Essexshire, which has the shoreline in England of many of the fishing villages most heavily utilized by London’s Fishmongers Guild, the second most powerful of London’s ancient 25 Guilds and the creator of England’s Navy. So, from his home Parish of Chelmsford, Essexshire and from the surrounding villages of that Shire, of East Anglia, etc., Robert Rich stimulated the recruitment of the 20,000 settlers which, during the 1630’s, crossed the North Atlantic to colonize the Shoreline of the Grand Banks Fisheries, create “New England,” the US “North,” and, eventually, the modern USA.

[Ezra]

Calling democracy " mob rule" plays right into the hands of the elite class. It comes from the time when only rich property owners had the right to vote as in the House of Lords. They considered the uneducated masses as the "mob". Thus the term mob rule.

The mob needed smart men to rule over them because they are too stupid to make decisions for themselves and would likely vote the Lords out of their exalted status.

You mean they only need 51% to vote the rest of the 49% of ignorant people into bondage to pay for the 51% to live comfortable lives.

Right now, 535 congressmen, 100 senators, 1 president, a handful of judges and various other bureaucrats force millions into bondage so they and a few cronies can live a comfortable life.

Give me 51 percent instead of .001 percent.

I hear ya. What's going on in government is a joke. The founders of America would be ashamed of what we have done to the government they set up and the freedoms they fought so hard to gain.

[Separatist]

You're right Thomas, but what you are describing is not a republic in the traditional sense, any more that the People's Republic of China is a republic. Listen to the talk I posted. It's all about size and scale. True republics are small. When they get larger and larger, they secede, divide and sub-divide to keep the human scale. These small units would maintain their independence and sovereignty.

If you think we are a republic, you're wrong. The last threads were cut by Lincoln. The states went from being sovereign to being mere administrative units of the national government.

Again, its really about size and scale. Ancient Greece was composed of 1500 republics, described by the speaker as frogs surrounding the pond, croaking. This was the vision of people like Jefferson. Even most of our states in the US are too large. Local governance and autonomy is republicanism.

The same idea holds for local church communities. It is fallen man that centralizes all walks of life. Just as you seek local church community, you ought to seek local neighborhood/community governance, not subject to the elite few, or even a mass 300 million person vote.

[Rose Garden]

Not very many people in here seem to believe this verse:

26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

I suppose it is the foolishness of the natural man speaking that we all seem to think the majority of people would vote oppression on others. That defies logic. It's easy for one man in power to see how ten other men giving him a portion of their labors could allow him to have a cushy life, but how is that going to work for the 51%? When you have the majority making the decisions, you are more likely that people are going to consider things holistically because they are going to know that a majority has to approve to decision.

That said, there is a lot in Mosiah 29 that is important. The Nephites got their law from the Lord through their fathers and they expected the Lord to destroy them if the time came that the majority of the people chose wickedness. We don't. Why don't we? Why don't we trust the God of this land?

[Separatist]

Think local. True republicanism (small r) is local government: sovereign, independent, small, human scale. Why should I be subject to the vote of persons thousands of miles away, whether it be a small elite or majority? Local governanace, local communities. We are so used to thinking on a colossal scale that we can no longer imagine local self governing communities where it doesn't matter to me what happens anywhere else besides my own backyard.

[Ezra]

Think local. True republicanism (small r) is local government: sovereign, independent, small, human scale. Why should I be subject to the vote of persons thousands of miles away, whether it be a small elite or majority? Local governanace, local communities. We are so used to thinking on a colossal scale that we can no longer imagine local self governing communities where it doesn't matter to me what happens anywhere else besides my own backyard.

The larger the scale of people you are voting for the more removed we are from the consiquenses of that vote.

On a local level if we vote our neighbor into poverty we feel the effects as our neighbor will let us feel it.

[Ezra]

Not very many people in here seem to believe this verse:

26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

I suppose it is the foolishness of the natural man speaking that we all seem to think the majority of people would vote oppression on others. That defies logic. It's easy for one man in power to see how ten other men giving him a portion of their labors could allow him to have a cushy life, but how is that going to work for the 51%? When you have the majority making the decisions, you are more likely that people are going to consider things holistically because they are going to know that a majority has to approve to decision.

That said, there is a lot in Mosiah 29 that is important. The Nephites got their law from the Lord through their fathers and they expected the Lord to destroy them if the time came that the majority of the people chose wickedness. We don't. Why don't we? Why don't we trust the God of this land?

I believe it on a local scale. On a large scale this happens

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because then the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.

[isaacs2066]

Think local. True republicanism (small r) is local government: sovereign, independent, small, human scale. Why should I be subject to the vote of persons thousands of miles away, whether it be a small elite or majority? Local governanace, local communities. We are so used to thinking on a colossal scale that we can no longer imagine local self governing communities where it doesn't matter to me what happens anywhere else besides my own backyard.

A republic can work on any scale.

Although direct republics only work well when small.

[Rose Garden]

Not very many people in here seem to believe this verse:

26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

I suppose it is the foolishness of the natural man speaking that we all seem to think the majority of people would vote oppression on others. That defies logic. It's easy for one man in power to see how ten other men giving him a portion of their labors could allow him to have a cushy life, but how is that going to work for the 51%? When you have the majority making the decisions, you are more likely that people are going to consider things holistically because they are going to know that a majority has to approve to decision.

That said, there is a lot in Mosiah 29 that is important. The Nephites got their law from the Lord through their fathers and they expected the Lord to destroy them if the time came that the majority of the people chose wickedness. We don't. Why don't we? Why don't we trust the God of this land?

I believe it on a local scale. On a large scale this happens

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because then the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.

It either applies on a universal level or not. All true principles do.

The thing is, a grade is an arbitrary reward. The true reward of learning, the excitement and satisfaction of understanding truth, is an individual reward that cannot be reassigned to another. Apparently the professor's lessons were so uninspiring that he needed to dangle carrots to convince his students to do the work.

I probably shouldn't be criticizing, because in all honesty, our whole society is so saturated with arbitrary rewards like this that the people really do desire that which is not right. We don't know the real satisfaction of real work and the resulting rewards. And so overall, we are chasing carrots and upholding systems that are detrimental to our well being.

While it might not be normal for people to desire that which is not right, it does seem to be the norm right now. However, if we are seeking a government that assumes people are seeking evil, we are seeking the wrong thing. Only one thing can save us and that is divine intervention. That it what we ought to be seeking, individually and as a whole.

[Ezra]

Not very many people in here seem to believe this verse:

26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

I suppose it is the foolishness of the natural man speaking that we all seem to think the majority of people would vote oppression on others. That defies logic. It's easy for one man in power to see how ten other men giving him a portion of their labors could allow him to have a cushy life, but how is that going to work for the 51%? When you have the majority making the decisions, you are more likely that people are going to consider things holistically because they are going to know that a majority has to approve to decision.

That said, there is a lot in Mosiah 29 that is important. The Nephites got their law from the Lord through their fathers and they expected the Lord to destroy them if the time came that the majority of the people chose wickedness. We don't. Why don't we? Why don't we trust the God of this land?

I believe it on a local scale. On a large scale this happens

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because then the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.

It either applies on a universal level or not. All true principles do.

The thing is, a grade is an arbitrary reward. The true reward of learning, the excitement and satisfaction of understanding truth, is an individual reward that cannot be reassigned to another. Apparently the professor's lessons were so uninspiring that he needed to dangle carrots to convince his students to do the work.

I probably shouldn't be criticizing, because in all honesty, our whole society is so saturated with arbitrary rewards like this that the people really do desire that which is not right. We don't know the real satisfaction of real work and the resulting rewards. And so overall, we are chasing carrots and upholding systems that are detrimental to our well being.

While it might not be normal for people to desire that which is not right, it does seem to be the norm right now. However, if we are seeking a government that assumes people are seeking evil, we are seeking the wrong thing. Only one thing can save us and that is divine intervention. That it what we ought to be seeking, individually and as a whole.

I guess I didn't explain myself very well.

It is as you say a universal principle if applied correctly.

Just like every tool. It can be used correctly or not.

When you have a small or local group of people this principle works very well. As you know the people and can see the consiquenses of your vote.

The more removed we are from the people that our vote affects the less likely we will vote correctly.

Let justic be done thread is a good example. If you have starving African children pulling at your heart strings. More people will forget correct principles and vote for their neighbors to flip the bill. Which is socialism and legal plunder.

But on a local level you when your discussing such matters. Your neighbor bill can voice his situation and say if you do that my kids will be starving. Then you will have to take money from the starving Africans or someone else to feed my kids.

There is direct feedback and a direct connection. A direct consequence.

[Rose Garden]

Not very many people in here seem to believe this verse:

I suppose it is the foolishness of the natural man speaking that we all seem to think the majority of people would vote oppression on others. That defies logic. It's easy for one man in power to see how ten other men giving him a portion of their labors could allow him to have a cushy life, but how is that going to work for the 51%? When you have the majority making the decisions, you are more likely that people are going to consider things holistically because they are going to know that a majority has to approve to decision.

That said, there is a lot in Mosiah 29 that is important. The Nephites got their law from the Lord through their fathers and they expected the Lord to destroy them if the time came that the majority of the people chose wickedness. We don't. Why don't we? Why don't we trust the God of this land?

I believe it on a local scale. On a large scale this happens

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because then the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Could not be any simpler than that.

It either applies on a universal level or not. All true principles do.

The thing is, a grade is an arbitrary reward. The true reward of learning, the excitement and satisfaction of understanding truth, is an individual reward that cannot be reassigned to another. Apparently the professor's lessons were so uninspiring that he needed to dangle carrots to convince his students to do the work.

I probably shouldn't be criticizing, because in all honesty, our whole society is so saturated with arbitrary rewards like this that the people really do desire that which is not right. We don't know the real satisfaction of real work and the resulting rewards. And so overall, we are chasing carrots and upholding systems that are detrimental to our well being.

While it might not be normal for people to desire that which is not right, it does seem to be the norm right now. However, if we are seeking a government that assumes people are seeking evil, we are seeking the wrong thing. Only one thing can save us and that is divine intervention. That it what we ought to be seeking, individually and as a whole.

I guess I didn't explain myself very well.

It is as you say a universal principle if applied correctly.

Just like every tool. It can be used correctly or not.

When you have a small or local group of people this principle works very well. As you know the people and can see the consiquenses of your vote.

The more removed we are from the people that our vote affects the less likely we will vote correctly.

Let justic be done thread is a good example. If you have starving African children pulling at your heart strings. More people will forget correct principles and vote for their neighbors to flip the bill. Which is socialism and legal plunder.

But on a local level you when your discussing such matters. Your neighbor bill can voice his situation and say if you do that my kids will be starving. Then you will have to take money from the starving Africans or someone else to feed my kids.

There is direct feedback and a direct connection. A direct consequence.

I see what you mean. That is true. I think that is why the feds seem to be able to do some pretty illogical things and mostly get away with it.

[Separatist]

From the Democratic Socialists of America:
http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well . . . .”

[Rose Garden]

From the Democratic Socialists of America:
http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well . . . .”

Maybe people aren't understanding democracy then.