[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2069-2076]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       REPUBLIC VERSUS DEMOCRACY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, at the close of the Constitutional Convention 
in 1787, Benjamin Franklin told an inquisitive citizen that the 
delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave the

[[Page 2070]]

people a Republic, if you can keep it. We should now apologize to Mr. 
Franklin. It is obvious that the Republic is gone, and we are wallowing 
in a pure democracy against which the Founders had strongly warned.
  Madison, the Father of the Constitution, could not have been more 
explicit in his fear and concern for democracies. ``Democracies have 
ever been spectacles of turbulence and contentions, have ever been 
found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, 
and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been 
violent in their deaths.''
  If Madison's assessment was correct, it behooves those of us in 
Congress to take note and decide, indeed, whether the public has 
vantaged when it occurred and what to expect in the ways of turbulence, 
contention and violence, and above all else what can we and what will 
we do about it.
  The turbulence seems self-evident. Domestic welfare programs are not 
sustainable and do not accomplish their stated goals. State and Federal 
spending and deficits are out of control. Terrorism and uncontrollable 
fear undermines our sense of well-being. Hysterical reactions to 
dangers not yet seen prompt the people at the prodding of the 
politicians to readily sacrifice their liberties in vain hope that 
someone else will take care of them and guarantee their security.
  With these obvious signs of a failed system all around us, there 
seems to be more determination than ever to antagonize the people of 
the world by pursuing a world empire. Nation-building, foreign 
intervention, preemptive war and global government drive our foreign 
policy.
  There seems to be complete aversion to defending the Republic and the 
Constitution that established it. The Founders clearly understood the 
dangers of a democracy. Edmond Randolph of Virginia described the 
effort to deal with the issue at the Constitutional Convention: ``The 
general object was to produce a cure for evils under which the United 
States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origins, every man 
had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.''

                              {time}  1400

  These strongly held views regarding the evils of democracies and the 
benefit of a constitutional republic were shared by all the Founders. 
For them, a democracy meant centralized power, controlled by majority 
opinion, which was up for grabs and, therefore, completely arbitrary.
  In contrast, a republic was decentralized and representative in 
nature, with the government's purpose strictly limited by the 
Constitution to the protection of liberty and private property 
ownership. They believe the majority should never be able to undermine 
its principle and that the government must be tightly held in check by 
constitutional restraints.
  The difference between a democracy and a republic was simple. Would 
we live under the age old concept of the rule of man or the enlightened 
rule of law?
  A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a 
republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution, with this 
goal in mind, is no better than the moral standards and desires of the 
people.
  Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever 
written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the 
dangers of a democracy, it, too, was flawed from the beginning. Instead 
of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves 
yielded to the democratic majority's demands that they compromise on 
the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, 
culminated in a civil war that surely could have been prevented with 
clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the 
establishment of a constitutional republic.
  Subsequently, the same urge to accommodate majority opinion while 
ignoring the principles of individual liberty led to some other serious 
errors. Even amending the Constitution in a proper fashion to impose 
alcohol prohibition turned out to be a disaster. Fortunately, this was 
rectified after a short time with its repeal.
  But today, the American people accept drug prohibition, a policy 
equally damaging to liberty as was alcohol prohibition. A majority vote 
in Congress has been enough to impose this very expensive and failed 
program on the American people even without bothering to amend the 
Constitution. It has been met with only minimal but, fortunately, 
growing dissent. For the first 150 years of our history, when we were 
much closer to being a true Republic, there were no Federal laws 
dealing with the serious medical problem of addiction.
  The ideas of democracy, not the principles of liberty, were 
responsible for the passage of the 16th amendment. It imposed the 
income tax on the American people and helped us usher in the modern age 
of the welfare warfare State. Unfortunately, the 16th amendment has not 
been repealed as was the 18th. As long as the 16th amendment is in 
place, the odds are slim that we can restore a constitutional republic 
dedicated to liberty. The personal income tax is more than symbolic of 
a democracy; it is a predictable consequence.
  The transition from republic to democracy was gradual and insidious. 
Its seeds were sown early in our history. In many ways, the Civil War 
and its aftermath laid the foundation for the acute erosion that took 
place over the entire 20th century.
  Chronic concern about war and economic downturns events caused by an 
intrusive government's failure to follow the binding restraints of the 
Constitution allowed majority demands to supercede the rights of the 
minority. By the end of the 20th century, majority opinion had become 
the determining factor in all that government does. The rule of law was 
cast aside, leaving the Constitution a shell of what it once was, a 
Constitution with rules that guaranteed a Republic with limit and 
regional government and protection of personal liberty.
  The marketplace, driven by voluntary cooperation, private property 
ownership, and sound money was severely undermined with the acceptance 
of the principles of true democracy. Unfortunately, too many people 
confused the democratic elections of leaders in a Republic for 
democracy by accepting the rule of majority opinion in all affairs. For 
majorities to pick leaders is one thing. It is something quite 
different for majorities to decide what rights are, to redistribute 
property, to tell people how to manage their personal lives, and to 
promote undeclared, unconstitutional wars.
  The majority is assumed to be in charge today and can do whatever it 
pleases. If the majority has not yet sanctioned some desired breach of 
action demanded by special interest, the propaganda machine goes into 
operation and the pollsters relay the information back to politicians 
who are seeking legitimacy in their endeavors. The rule of law and the 
Constitution have become irrelevant, and we live by constant polls.
  This trend toward authoritarian democracy was tolerated because, 
unlike a military dictatorship, it was done in the name of benevolence, 
fairness, and equity. The pretence of love and compassion by those who 
desire to remold society and undermine the Constitution convinced the 
recipients and even the victims of its necessity.
  Since it was never a precipitous departure from the Republic, the 
gradual erosion of liberty went unnoticed, but it is encouraging that 
more and more citizens are realizing just how much has been lost by 
complacency.
  The resolution to the problems we face as a result of this profound 
transition to pure democracy will be neither quick nor painless. This 
transition has occurred even though the word ``democracy'' does not 
appear in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The 
Founders explicitly denounced it.
  Over the last hundred years the goal of securing individual liberties 
within the framework of a constitutional republic has been replaced 
with incessant talk of democracy and fairness. Rallying support for our 
ill-advised participation in World War I, Wilson spoke glowingly of 
making the world safe for

[[Page 2071]]

democracy and never mentioned national security. This theme has to this 
day persisted in all our foreign affairs. Neoconservatives now brag of 
their current victories in promoting what they call ``hard Wilsonism.''
  A true defense of self-determination for all people, the necessary 
ingredient of a free society is ignored. Self-determination implies 
separation of smaller governments from the larger entities that we 
witnessed in the breakup of the Soviet Union. This notion contradicts 
the goal of pure democracy and world government. A single world 
government is the ultimate goal of all social egalitarians who are 
unconcerned with liberty.
  Today, the concepts of rights and property ownership are completely 
arbitrary. Congress, the courts, Presidents and bureaucrats arbitrarily 
legislate on a daily basis, seeking only the endorsement of the 
majority. Although the Republic was designed to protect the minority 
against the dictates of the majority, today we find the reverse. The 
Republic is no longer recognizable.
  Supporters of democracy are always quick to point out one of the 
perceived benefits of this system is the redistribution of wealth by 
government to the poor. Although this may be true in a limited fashion, 
the champions of this system never concern themselves with the victims 
from whom the wealth is stolen. The so-called benefits are short lived 
because democracy consumes wealth with little concern for those who 
produce it. Eventually, the programs cannot be funded, and the 
dependency that has developed precipitates angry outcries for even more 
fairness.
  Since reversing the tide against liberty is so difficult, this 
unworkable system inevitably leads to various forms of tyranny. As our 
Republic crumbles, voices of protest grow louder. The central 
government becomes more authoritarian with each crisis. As the equality 
of education plummets, the role of the Federal Government is expanded. 
As the quality of medical care collapses, the role of the Federal 
Government in medicine is greatly increased.
  Foreign policy failures precipitate cries for more intervention 
abroad and an even greater empire. Cries for security grow louder and 
concern for liberty languishes.
  A tax on our homeland form a massive increase in the bureaucracy to 
protect us from all dangers seen and imagined.
  The prime goal of the concern of the Founders, the protection of 
liberty, is ignored. Those expressing any serious concern for personal 
liberty are condemned for their self-centeredness and their lack of 
patriotism. Even if we could defeat the al Qaeda, which is surely a 
worthwhile goal, it would do little to preserve our liberties, while 
ignoring the real purpose of our government. Another enemy would surely 
replace it, just as the various groups of so-called barbarians never 
left the Roman Empire alone once its internal republican structure 
collapsed.
  Once it becomes acceptable to change the rules by majority vote, 
there are no longer any limits on the power of the government. When the 
Constitution can be subverted by mere legislative votes, executive 
orders or judicial degrees, constitutional restraints on the government 
are eliminated. This process was rare in the early years of our 
history, but now it is routine.
  Democracy is promoted in the name of fairness in an effort to help 
some special interest group receive a benefit that it claims it needs 
or is entitled to. If only one small group were involved, nothing would 
come of the demands, but coalitions develop and the various groups ban 
together to form a majority, to vote themselves all those things that 
they expect others to provide for them.
  Although the motivating factor is frequently the desire for the poor 
to better themselves through the willingness of others to sacrifice for 
what they see as a good cause, the process is doomed to failure. 
Governments are inefficient and the desired goals are rarely achieved. 
Administrators who benefit perpetuate the programs. Wealthy elites 
learn to benefit from the system in a superior fashion over the poor 
because they know how to skim the cream off the top of all the programs 
designed for the disadvantaged. They join the various groups in 
producing the majority vote needed to fund their own special interest.
  Public financing of housing, for instance, benefits builders, 
bureaucrats, insurance companies and financial institutions while the 
poor end up in drug-invested, crime-ridden housing projects. For the 
same reason, not only do business leaders not object to this system but 
they also become strong supporters of welfare programs and foreign aid.
  Big business strongly supports programs like the Export Import Bank, 
the IMF, the World Bank, foreign subsidies and military adventurism. 
Tax Code revisions and government contracts mean big profits for those 
who are well-connected. Concern for individual liberty is pushed to the 
bottom of the priority list for both the poor and the rich welfare 
recipients.
  Prohibitions placed in the Constitution against programs that serve 
special interests are the greatest threat to the current system of 
democracy under which we operate. In order for the benefits to 
continue, politicians must reject the rule of law and concern 
themselves only with the control of majority opinion. Sadly, that is 
the job of almost all politicians. It is clearly the motivation behind 
the millions spent on constant lobbying, as well as the billions spent 
on promoting the right candidate in each election.
  Those who champion liberty are rarely heard from. The media, banking, 
insurance, airlines, transportation, financial institutions, government 
employees, the military industrial complex, the education system and 
the medical community are all dependent on government appropriations 
resulting in a high-stakes system of government.
  Democracy encourages the mother of all political corruption, the use 
of political money to buy influence. If the dollars spent in this 
effort represent the degree to which democracy has won out over the 
rule of law and the Constitution, it looks like the American Republic 
is left wanting. Billions are spent on the endeavor. Money and politics 
is the key to implementing policy and swaying democratic majorities. It 
is seen by most Americans, and rightly so, as a negative and danger. 
Yet the response, unfortunately, is only more of the same.
  More laws tinkering with freedom of expression are enacted in hopes 
that regulating sums of private money thrown into the political system 
will curtail the abuse; but failing to understand the cause of the 
problem, lack of respect for the Constitution and obsession with 
legislative relativity dictated by the majority serve only to further 
undermine the rule of law.
  We were adequately warned about this problem. Democracies lead to 
chaos, violence and bankruptcy. The demands of the majority are always 
greater than taxation alone can provide. Therefore, control of the 
monetary and banking system is required for democracies to operate.
  It was no accident in 1913 when the dramatic shift toward democracy 
became pronounced that the Federal Reserve was established. A personal 
income tax was imposed as well. At the same time, popular election of 
Senators was instituted, and our foreign policy became aggressively 
interventionist. Even with an income tax, the planners for war and 
welfare knew that it would become necessary to eliminate restraints on 
the printing of money. Private counterfeiting was a heinous crime, but 
government counterfeiting and fractional reserve banking were required 
to seductively pay for the majority's demands.

                              {time}  1415

  It is for this reason that democracies always bring about currency 
debase-
ment through inflation of the money supply.
  Some of the planners of today clearly understand the process. And 
others, out of ignorance, view central bank money creation as a 
convenience with little danger. That is where they are

[[Page 2072]]

wrong. Even though the wealthy and the bankers support paper money, 
believing they know how to protect against its ill effects, many of 
them are eventually dragged down in the economic downturns that always 
develop. It is not a new era that they have created for us today, but 
more of the same endured throughout history by so many other nations.
  The belief that democratic demands can be financed by deficits, 
credit creation, and taxation is based on false hope and failure to see 
how it contributes to the turbulence as the democracy collapses. Once a 
nation becomes a democracy, the whole purpose of government changes. 
Instead of the government's goal being that of guaranteeing liberty, 
equal justice, private property and voluntary exchange, the government 
embarks on the impossible task of achieving economic equality and 
micromanaging the economy and protecting citizens from themselves in 
all their activities.
  The destruction of the wealth-building process, which is inherent in 
a free society, is never anticipated. Once it is realized it has been 
undermined, it is too late to easily reverse the attacks against 
limited government and personal liberty. Democracy, by necessity, 
endorses special interest interventionism, inflationism and 
corporatism. In order to carry out the duties now expected of the 
government, power must be transferred from the citizens to the 
politicians. The only thing left is to decide which group or groups 
have the greatest influence over the government officials.
  As the wealth of the nation dwindles, competition between the special 
interest groups grows more intense and becomes the dominant goal of all 
political action. Restoration of liberty, the market, and personal 
responsibilities are of little interest and are eventually seen as 
impractical. Power and public opinion become crucial factors in 
determining the direction of all government expenditures.
  Although both major parties now accept the principles of rule of 
majority and reject the rule of law, the beneficiaries for each party 
are generally different, although they frequently overlap. Propaganda, 
demagoguery, and control of the educational system and the media are 
essential to directing the distribution of the loot the government 
steals from those who are still honestly working for a living.
  The greater problem is that nearly everyone receives some government 
benefit and, at the same time, contributes to the Treasury. Most hope 
they will get back more than they pay in and, therefore, go along with 
the firmly entrenched system. Others, who understand and would choose 
to opt out and assume responsibility for themselves, are not allowed to 
and are forced to participate. The end only comes with the collapse of 
the system, since a gradual and logical reversal of the inexorable 
march toward democratic socialism is unachievable. Soviet-style 
communism dramatically collapsed once it was recognized that it could 
no longer function, and a better system replaced it. It became no 
longer practical to pursue token reforms like those that took place 
over its 70-year history.
  The turmoil and dangers of pure democracy are known. We should get 
prepared. But it will be the clarity with which we plan its replacement 
that determines the amount of pain and suffering endured during the 
transition to another system. Hopefully, the United States Congress and 
other government leaders will come to realize the seriousness of our 
current situation and replace the business-as-usual attitude, 
regardless of political demands and growing needs of a boisterous 
majority.
  Simply stated, our wealth is running out, and the affordability of 
democracy is coming to an end. History reveals that once majorities can 
vote themselves largesse, the system is destined to collapse from 
within. But in order to maintain the special interest system for as 
long as possible, more and more power must be given to an ever-
expanding central government, which of course only makes matters worse. 
The economic shortcomings of such a system are easily understood. What 
is too often ignored is that the flip side of delivering power to 
government is the loss of liberty to the individual. This loss of 
liberty causes exactly what the government does not want: Less 
productive citizens who can't pay taxes.
  Even before 9-11 these trends were in place, and proposals were 
abundant for restraining liberty. Since 9-11 the growth of centralized 
government and the loss of privacy and personal freedoms have 
significantly accelerated. It is in dealing with homeland defense and 
potential terrorist attacks that the domestic social programs and the 
policy of foreign intervention are coming together and precipitating a 
rapid expansion of the state and an erosion of personal liberty.
  Like our social welfarism at home, our foreign meddling and empire-
building abroad are a consequence of our becoming a pure democracy. The 
dramatic shift away from the Republic that occurred in 1913, as 
expected, led to a bold change of purpose in foreign affairs. The goal 
of making the world safe for democracy was forcefully put forth by 
Wilson. Protecting national security had become too narrow a goal and 
selfish in purpose. An obligation for spreading democracy became a 
noble obligation backed by a moral commitment every bit as utopian as 
striving for economic equality in an egalitarian society here at home.
  With the growing affection for democracy, it was no giant leap to 
assume that majority opinion should mold personal behavior. It was no 
mere coincidence that the 18th amendment, alcohol prohibition, was 
passed in 1919.
  Ever since 1913, all our Presidents have endorsed meddling in the 
internal affairs of other nations and have given generous support to 
the notion that a world government would facilitate the goals of 
democratic welfare or socialism. On a daily basis we hear that we must 
be prepared to send our money and use our young people to police the 
world in order to spread democracy. Whether it is Venezuela or 
Colombia, Afghanistan or Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Korea or Vietnam, our 
intervention is always justified with the tone of moral arrogance that 
it is for their own good. Our policymakers promote democracy as a cure-
all for the various complex problems of the world. Unfortunately, the 
propaganda machine is able to hide the real reasons for our empire-
building.
  Promoting democracy overseas merely becomes a slogan for doing things 
that the powerful and influential strive to do for their own benefit. 
To get authority for these overseas pursuits, all that is required of 
the government is that the majority be satisfied with the stated goals 
no matter how self-serving they may be. The rule of law, that is 
constitutional restraint, is ignored. But as successful as the policy 
may be on the short run, and as noble as it may be portrayed, it is a 
major contributing factor to the violence and chaos that eventually 
come from pure democracy.
  There is abundant evidence that the pretense of spreading democracy 
contradicts the very policies we are pursuing. We preach about 
democratic elections, but we are only too willing to accept some for-
the-moment friendly dictator who actually overthrew a democratically 
elected leader or to interfere in some foreign election. This is the 
case with Pakistan's Musharraf. For a temporary alliance, he reaped 
hundreds of millions of dollars, even though strong evidence exists 
that the Pakistanis have harbored and trained al Qaeda terrorists, that 
they have traded weapons with North Korea, and that they possess 
weapons of mass destruction.
  No one should be surprised that the Arabs are confused by our 
overtures of friendship. We have just recently promised billions of 
dollars to Turkey to buy their support for the new Persian Gulf War. 
Our support of Saudi Arabia, in spite of its ties to the al Qaeda, is 
financing and training. It is totally ignored by those obsessed with 
going to war against Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the furthest thing from a 
democracy. As a matter of fact, if democratic elections were permitted, 
the Saudi Government would be overthrown by a bin Laden ally.
  Those who constantly preach global government and democracy ought to

[[Page 2073]]

consider the outcome of their philosophy in a hypothetical Mideast 
regional government. If these people were asked which country in this 
region possessed weapons of mass destruction, had a policy of 
oppressive occupation, and constantly defies U.N. council resolutions, 
the vast majority would overwhelmingly name Israel. Is this ludicrous? 
No. This is what democracy is all about and what can come from a one 
man, one vote philosophy.
  U.S. policy supports the overthrow of the democratically elected 
Chavez government in Venezuela because we do not like the economic 
policy it pursues. We support a military takeover as long as the new 
dictator will do as we tell him.
  There is no credibility in our contention that we really want to 
impose democracy on other nations, yet promoting democracy is the 
public justification for our foreign intervention. It sounds so much 
nicer than saying we are going to risk the lives of young people and 
massively tax our citizens to secure the giant oil reserves of Iraq. 
After we take over Iraq, how long would one expect it to take until 
there are authentic nationwide elections in that country? The odds of 
that happening in even 100 years are remote. It is virtually impossible 
to imagine a time when democratic elections would ever occur for the 
election of leaders in a constitutional republic dedicated to the 
protection of liberty anyplace in the region.
  The tragedy of 9-11 and its aftermath dramatizes so clearly how a 
flawed foreign policy has served to encourage the majoritarians 
determined to run everyone's life. Due to its natural inefficiencies 
and tremendous cost, a failing welfare state requires an ever-expanding 
authoritarian approach to enforce mandates, collect the necessary 
revenues, and keep afloat an unworkable system. Once the people grow to 
depend on government subsistence, they demand its continuation.
  Excessive meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, and 
involving ourselves in every conflict around the globe has not endeared 
the United States to the oppressed of the world. The Japanese are tired 
of us, the South Koreans are tired of us, the Europeans are tired of 
us, the Central Americans are tired of us, the Filipinos are tired of 
us, and, above all, the Arab Muslims are tired of us. Angry and 
frustrated by our persistent bullying, and disgusted with having their 
own government bought and controlled by the United States, joining a 
radical Islamic movement was a natural and predictable consequence for 
Muslims.
  We believe bin Laden when he takes credit for an attack on the West, 
and we believe him when he warns us of an impending attack, but we 
refuse to listen to his explanation of why he and his allies are at war 
with us. Bin Laden claims are straightforward. The U.S. defiles Islam 
with bases on the Holy Land and Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war 
against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and 
weapons being used against the Palestinians, as the Palestinian 
territory shrinks and Israel's occupation expands.
  There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer 
if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it. To 
dismiss terrorism as a result of Muslims hating us because we are rich 
and free is one of the greatest foreign policy frauds ever perpetuated 
on the American people. Because the propaganda machine, the media, and 
the government have restated this so many times, the majority now 
accept it as face value, and the administration gets the political 
cover its needs to pursue a holy war for democracy against the infidels 
who hate us for our goodness.
  Polling on the matter is followed closely and, unfortunately, is far 
more important than the rule of law. Do we hear the pundits talk of 
constitutional restraints on Congress and the administration? No. All 
we ever hear are the reassurances that the majority support the 
President; therefore, it must be all right.
  The terrorist attacks are related to our severely flawed foreign 
policy of intervention. They also reflect the shortcomings of a 
bureaucracy that is already big enough to know everything it needs to 
know about impending attacks, but too cumbersome to do anything about 
it. Bureaucratic weaknesses within a fragile welfare state provide a 
prime opportunity for those whom we antagonize by our domination over 
world affairs and global wealth to take advantage of our vulnerability.
  What has been our answer to the shortcomings of policies driven by 
manipulated majority opinion by the powerful elite? We have responded 
by massively increasing the Federal Government's policing activity to 
hold American citizens in check and make sure we are well behaved and 
pose no threat, while massively expanding our aggressive presence 
around the world. There is no possible way these moves can make us more 
secure against terrorism, yet they will accelerate our march toward 
national bankruptcy with a currency collapse.
  Relying on authoritarian democracy and domestic and international 
meddling only moves us sharply away from a constitutional republic and 
the rule of law and toward the turbulence of a decaying democracy about 
which Madison and others had warned. Once the goal of liberty is 
replaced by a preconceived notion of the benefits and the moral 
justification of a democracy, a trend toward internationalism and world 
government follows. We certainly witnessed this throughout the 20th 
century. Since World War II, we have failed to follow the Constitution 
in taking this country to war, but instead have deferred to the 
collective democratic wisdom of the United Nations.

                              {time}  1430

  Once it is recognized that ultimate authority comes from an 
international body, whether it is the United Nations, NATO, the WTO, 
the World Bank or the IMF, the contest becomes a matter of who holds 
the reins of power and is able to dictate what is perceived as the will 
of the people in the world.
  In the name of democracy, just as it is done in Washington, powerful 
nations with the most money will control the United Nations policy. 
Bribery, threats and intimidation are common practices used to achieve 
a democratic consensus, no matter how controversial and short-lived the 
benefits.
  Can one imagine what it might be like if true worldwide democracy 
existed and the United Nations were controlled by a world-wide, one 
man/one vote philosophy? The masses of China and India could vote 
themselves whatever they needed from the more prosperous Western 
countries. How long would a world system last based on this absurdity? 
Yet this is the principle that we are working so hard to impose on 
ourselves and others around the world.
  In spite of the great strides made toward one-world government based 
on egalitarianism, I am optimistic that this utopian nightmare will 
never come to fruition. I have already made the case that here at home 
powerful special interests take over controlling majority opinion, 
making sure fairness in distribution is never achieved. This fact 
causes resentment and becomes so expensive that the entire system 
becomes unstable and eventually collapses.
  The same will occur internationally, even if it miraculously did not 
cause conflict among the groups demanding the loot confiscated from the 
producing individuals or countries. Democratic socialism is so 
destructive to production of wealth that it must fail, just as 
socialism failed under communism. We have a long way to go before old-
fashioned nationalism is dead and buried. In the meantime, the 
determination of those promoting democratic socialism will cause great 
harm to many people before its chaotic end and we rediscover the basic 
principle responsible for all of human progress.
  With the additional spending to wage war against terrorism at home, 
while propping up an ever-expensive and failing welfare state, and the 
added funds needed to police the world, all in the midst of a 
recession, we are destined to see an unbelievably huge explosion of 
deficit spending. Raising taxes will not

[[Page 2074]]

help. Borrowing the needed funds for the budgetary deficit, plus the 
daily borrowing from foreigners required to finance our ever-growing 
account deficit, will put tremendous pressure on the dollar.
  The time will come when the Fed will no longer be able to dictate low 
interest rates. Reluctance of foreigners to lend, the exorbitant size 
of our borrowing needs, and the risk premium will eventually send 
interest rates upward. Price inflation will accelerate and the cost of 
living for all Americans will increase. Under these conditions, most 
Americans will face a decline in their standard of living.
  Facing this problem of paying for past and present excess spending, 
the borrowing and inflating of the money supply has already begun in 
earnest. Many retirees, depending on their 401(k) funds and other 
retirement programs, are suffering the ill effects of the stock market 
crash, a phenomenon that still has a long way to go. Depreciating the 
dollar by printing excessive money, like the Fed is doing, will 
eventually devastate the purchasing power of those retirees who are 
dependent on Social Security. Government cost-of-living increases will 
never be able to keep up with the loss. The elderly are already unable 
to afford the inflated cost of medical care, especially the cost of 
pharmaceuticals.
  The reality is that we will not be able to inflate, tax, spend or 
borrow our way out of this mess that the Congress has delivered to the 
American people.
  The demands that come with pure democracy always lead to an unaf-
fordable system that ends with economic turmoil and political upheaval. 
Tragically, the worse the problems get, the louder is the demand for 
more of the same government programs that caused the problems in the 
first place, both domestic and international. Weaning off of government 
programs and getting away from foreign meddling because of political 
pressure are virtually impossible. The end comes only after economic 
forces make it clear we can no longer afford to pay for the 
extravagance that comes from the democratic dictates.
  Democracy is the most excessive form of government. There is no 
``king'' with an interest in preserving the nation's capital. Everyone 
desires something, and the special-interest groups, banding together, 
dictate to the politicians exactly what they want and need. Politicians 
are handsomely rewarded for being ``effective,'' that is, getting the 
benefits for the groups that support them. Effectiveness is never 
measured by efforts and achievements in securing liberty, even though 
it is the most important element in a prosperous and progressive world.
  Spending is predictable in a democracy, especially one that endorses 
foreign interventionism. It always goes up, both in nominal terms and 
in percentage of the nation's wealth.
  Paying for it can be quite complicated. The exact method is less 
consequential than the percent of the nation's wealth the government 
commands. Borrowing and central bank credit creation are generally used 
and are less noticeable, but more deceitful, than direct taxation to 
pay as we go.
  If direct taxation were accomplished through monthly checks written 
by each taxpayer, the cost of government would immediately be revealed, 
and the democratic con game would end much more quickly.
  The withholding principle was devised to make paying for the programs 
the majority demanded seem less painful. Passing on debt to the next 
generation through borrowing is also a popular way to pay for welfare 
and warfare. The effect of inflating a currency to pay the bills is 
difficult to understand and the victims are hard to identify. Inflation 
is the most sinister method of payment for a welfare state. It, too, 
grows in popularity as the demands increase for services that are not 
affordable.
  Although this appears to be a convenient and cheap way to pay the 
bills, the economic consequences of lost employment, inflated prices 
and economic dislocation make the long-term consequences much more 
severe than paying as we go. Not only is this costly in terms of 
national wealth, it significantly contributes to the political chaos 
and loss of liberty that accompany the death throes of a doomed 
democracy.
  This does not mean that direct taxes will not be continuously raised 
to pay for out-of-control spending. In a democracy, all earned wealth 
is assumed to belong to the government. Therefore, not raising taxes, 
cutting taxes, or granting tax credits are considered ``costs'' of 
government. Once this notion is established, tax credits or cuts are 
given only under condition that the beneficiaries conform to the 
democratic consensus. Freedom of choice is removed, even if a group is 
merely getting back control of that which was rightfully theirs in the 
first place.
  Tax-exempt status for various groups is not universal but is 
conditioned on whether their beliefs and practices are compatible with 
politically correct opinions endorsed by the democratic majority. This 
concept is incompatible with the principles of private-property 
ownership and individual liberty. In contrast, in a free society, all 
economic and social decision-making is controlled by private property 
owners without government intrusion, as long as no one is harmed in the 
process.
  The vast majority of the American people have come to accept 
democracy as a favorable system and are pleased with our efforts to 
pursue Wilson's dream of making the world safe for democracy. But the 
goals of pure democracy and that of a constitutional republic are 
incompatible. A clear understanding of the difference is paramount, if 
we are to remain a free and prosperous Nation.
  There are certain wonderful benefits in recognizing the guidance that 
majority opinion offers. It takes a consensus or prevailing attitude to 
endorse the principles of liberty and a constitution to protect them. 
This is a requirement for the rule of law to succeed. Without a 
consensus, the rule of law fails. This does not mean that the majority 
or public opinion, measured by polls, court rulings or legislative 
bodies should be able to alter the constitutional restraints on the 
government's abuse of life, liberty and property. But in a democracy 
that happens, and we know today that is happening in this country on a 
routine basis.
  In a free society with totally free markets, the votes by consumers 
through their purchases or refusal to purchase determine which 
businesses survive and which fail. This is free-choice democracy, and 
it is a powerful force in producing and bringing about economic 
efficiency. In today's democracy by decree, government laws dictate who 
receives the benefit and who gets shortchanged. Conditions of 
employment and sales are taxed and regulated at varying rates, and 
success or failure is too often dependent on government action than by 
consumers' voting in the marketplace by their spending habits. 
Individual consumers by their decisions should be in charge, not 
governments armed with mandates from the majority.
  Even a system of free market money, a redeemable gold coin standard, 
functions through the principle of consumers always voting or 
withholding support for that currency. A gold standard can only work 
when freely converted into gold coins, giving every citizen a right to 
vote on a daily basis for or against the government's money.
  It is too late to avoid the turbulence and violence that Madison 
warned us about. It has already started. But it is important to 
minimize the damage and prepare a way for the restoration of the 
Republic. The odds are not favorable, but not impossible. No one can 
know the future with certainty. The Soviet system came to an abrupt end 
with less violence than could ever have been imagined at the height of 
the Cold War. It was a pleasant surprise.
  Interestingly enough, what is needed is a majority opinion, 
especially by those who find themselves in leadership roles, whether 
political, educational or in the media, that rejects democracy and 
supports the rule of law within the Republic. This majority support is 
essential for the preservation of the freedom and prosperity with which 
America is identified.

[[Page 2075]]

  This will not occur until we as a Nation once again understand how 
freedom serves the interests of everyone. Henry Grady Weaver, in his 
1947 classic, ``The Mainspring of Human Progress,'' explains how it 
works. His thesis is simple. Liberty permits progress, while government 
intervention tends always to tyranny. Liberty releases creative energy; 
government intervention suppresses it. This release of energy was never 
greater than in the time following the American Revolution and the 
writing of the U.S. Constitution.
  Instead of individual activity being controlled by the government or 
superstitious beliefs about natural and mystical events, the activity 
is controlled by the individual. This understanding recognizes the 
immense value in voluntary cooperation and enlightened self-interests. 
Freedom requires self-control and moral responsibility. No one owes 
anyone else anything and everyone is responsible for his or her own 
acts. The principle of never harming one's neighbor, or never sending 
the government to do the dirty work, is key to making the system tend 
to peaceful pursuits and away from the tyranny and majority-induced 
violence. Nothing short of a reaffirmation of this principle can 
restore the freedoms once guaranteed under the Constitution. Without 
this, prosperity for the masses is impossible; and as a Nation we 
become more vulnerable to outside threats.
  In a Republic, the people are in charge. The Constitution provides 
strict restraints on the politicians, bureaucrats and the military. 
Everything the government is allowed to do is only done with explicit 
permission from the people or the Constitution.
  Today, it is the opposite. The American people must get permission 
from the government for their every move, whether it is the use of 
their own property or spending their own money. Even the most serious 
decisions, such as going to war, are done while ignoring the 
Constitution and without a vote of the people's representatives in the 
Congress. Members of the global government have more to say about when 
American troops are put in harm's way than the U.S. Congress. The 
Constitution no longer restrains the government. The government 
restrains the people in all they do. This destroys individual creative 
energy, and the ``mainspring of human progress'' is lost. The 
consequences are less progress, less prosperity, and less personal 
fulfillment.
  A system that rejects voluntary contracts, enlightened self-interests 
and individual responsibilities permits the government to assume these 
responsibilities. And the government officials become morally obligated 
to protect us from ourselves, attempting to make us better people and 
setting standards for our personal behavior. That effort is already in 
full swing. But if this attitude prevails, liberty is gone.
  When government assumes the responsibility for individuals to achieve 
excellence and virtue, it does so at the expense of liberty and must 
resort to force and intimidation. Standards become completely 
arbitrary, depending on the attitude of those in power and the 
perceived opinion of the majority. Freedom of choice is gone.
  This leads to inevitable conflicts with the government dictating what 
one can eat, drink, smoke, or whatever. One group may promote 
abstinence, the other tax-supported condom distribution. Arguments over 
literature, prayer, pornography and sexual behavior are endless. It is 
now not even permissible to mention the word ``God'' on public 
property. A people who allows its government to set personal moral 
standards for all nonviolent behavior will naturally allow it to be 
involved in the more important aspects of spiritual life. For instance, 
there are tax deductions for churches that are politically correct, but 
not for those whose benefits are considered out of the mainstream.

                              {time}  1445

  Groups that do not meet the official politically correct standards 
are more likely to be put on the terrorist list.
  This arbitrary and destructive approach to solving difficult problems 
must be rejected if we ever hope to live again in a society where the 
role of government is limited to that of protecting freedom.
  The question I am most often asked when talking about this subject is 
why do our elected leaders so easily relinquish liberty and have so 
little respect for the Constitution? The people of whom I speak are 
convinced that liberty is good and big government is dangerous. They 
also are quite certain that we have drifted a long way from the 
principles that made America great, and their bewilderment continuously 
elicits a big ``why?''
  There is no easy answer to this and no single explanation. It 
involves temptation, envy, greed and ignorance, but worst of all 
humanitarian zeal. Unfortunately, the greater the humanitarian 
outreach, the greater the violence required to achieve it. The greater 
the desire to perform humanitarian deeds through legislation, the 
greater is the violence required to achieve it.
  Few understand this. There are literally no limits to the good deeds 
that some believe need to be done. Rarely does anyone question how each 
humanitarian act by government undermines the essential element of all 
human progress: individual liberty.
  Failure of government programs prompts more determined efforts, while 
the loss of liberty is ignored or rationalized away. Whether it is the 
war against poverty, drugs, terrorism, or the current Hitler of the 
day, an appeal to patriotism is used to convince the people that a 
little sacrifice, here and there, of liberty is a small price to pay.
  The results, though, are frightening and will soon even become more 
so. Poverty has been made worse. The drug war is a bigger threat than 
drug use. Terrorism remains a threat, and foreign wars have become 
routine and decided upon without congressional approval.
  Most of the damage to liberty and the Constitution is done by men and 
women of goodwill who are convinced they know what is best for the 
economy, others, and foreign powers. They inevitably fail to recognize 
their own arrogance in assuming they know what is the best personal 
behavior for others. Their failure to recognize the likelihood of 
mistakes by central planners allows them to ignore the magnitude of a 
flawed central government directive compared to an individual or a 
smaller unit of government mistake.
  C.S. Lewis had an opinion on this subject: ``Of all tyrannies, a 
tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most 
oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under 
omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes 
sleep, his cupidity may at some times be satiated, but those who 
torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so 
with the approval of their own conscience.''
  A system that is based on majority vote rather than the strict rule 
of law encourages the few who thrive on power and exerting authority 
over other people's lives, unlike the many driven by sincere 
humanitarian concerns. Our current system rewards those who respond to 
age-old human instincts of envy and greed as they gang up on those who 
produce. Those individuals who are tempted by the offer of power are 
quick to accommodate those who are the most demanding of government-
giveaway programs and government contracts. These special interest 
groups notoriously come from both the poor and the rich, while the 
middle class is required to pay.
  It is not a coincidence that in the times of rapid monetary 
debasement, the middle class suffers the most from the inflation and 
the job losses that monetary inflation brings. When inflation is 
severe, which it will become, the middle class can be completely wiped 
out. The stock market crash gives us a hint as to what is likely to 
come as this country is forced to pay for the excesses sustained over 
the past 30 years while operating under a fiat monetary system.
  Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman philosopher, commented on this subject 
as well. ``Absolute power corrupts even

[[Page 2076]]

when exercised for humane purposes. The benevolent despot who sees 
himself as a shepherd of the people still demands from others the 
submissiveness of sheep.''
  Good men driven by a desire for benevolence encourage the 
centralization of power. The corruptive temptation of power is made 
worse when domestic and international interventions go wrong and feed 
into the hate and envy that invade men's souls when the love of liberty 
is absent.
  Those of goodwill who work to help the downtrodden do so not knowing 
they are building a class of rulers who will become drunk with their 
own arrogance and a lust for power. Generally only a few in a society 
yield to the urge to dictate to others and seek power for the sake of 
power and then abuse it. Most members of society are complacent and 
respond to propaganda, but they unite in the democratic effort to 
rearrange the world in hopes of gaining benefits through coercive means 
and convince themselves they are helping their fellow man as well. A 
promise of security is a powerful temptation for many.
  A free society, on the other hand, requires these same desires be 
redirected. The desire for power and authority must be over one's self 
alone. The desire for security and prosperity should be directed 
inwardly rather than toward controlling others. We cannot accept the 
notion that the gang solution endorsed by the majority is the only 
option. Self-reliance and personal responsibility are crucial.
  But there is also a problem with economic understanding. Economic 
ignorance about the shortcomings of central economic planning, 
excessive taxation and regulations, central bank manipulation of money, 
and credit and interest rates is pervasive in our Nation's Capital. A 
large number of conservatives now forcefully argue that deficits do not 
matter. Spending programs never shrink no matter whether conservatives 
or liberals are in charge. Rhetoric favoring free trade is cancelled 
out by special interest protectionist measures. Support of 
international government agencies that manage trade such as the IMF, 
the World Bank, the WTO, and NAFTA politicizes international trade and 
eliminates any hope that free-trade capitalism will soon emerge.
  The Federal Government will not improve on its policies until the 
people coming to Washington are educated by a different breed of 
economists than those who dominate our government-run universities. 
Economic advisors and most officeholders merely reflect the economics 
taught to them. A major failure of our entire system will most likely 
occur before serious thought is given once again to the guidelines laid 
out in the Constitution.
  The current economic system of fiat money and interventionism, both 
domestic and international, serve to accommodate the unreasonable 
demands for government to take care of the people, and this, in turn, 
contributes to the worst of human instincts: authoritarian control by 
the few over the many.
  We as a Nation have lost our understanding of how the free market 
provides the greatest prosperity for the greatest number. Not only have 
most of us forgotten about the invisible hand of Adam Smith, few have 
ever heard of Mises and Hayek and Rothbart, the individuals who 
understood exactly why all economic ups and downs in the 20th century 
occurred, as well as the cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  But worst of all we have lost our faith in freedom. Materialistic 
concerns and desire for security drive our national politics. This 
trend has been sharply accelerated since 9-11.
  Understanding the connection between liberty, prosperity and security 
has been lost. The priorities are backwards. Prosperity and security 
come from liberty. Peace and the absence of war come from a consequence 
of liberty and free trade. The elimination of ignorance and restraints 
on do-goodism and authoritarianism in a civilized society can only be 
achieved through a contractual arrangement between the people and the 
government, in our case the U.S. Constitution. This document was the 
best ever devised for releasing the creative energy of a free people 
while strictly holding in check the destructive powers of government. 
Only the rule of law can constrain those who by human instinct look for 
a free ride while delivering power to those few, found in every 
society, whose only goal in life is a devilish desire to rule over 
others.
  The rule of law in a republic protects free-market activity and 
private property ownership and provides for equal justice under the 
law. It is this respect for law and rights over government power that 
protects the mainspring of human progress from the enemies of liberty. 
Communists and other Socialists have routinely argued that the law is 
merely a tool of the powerful capitalists.
  But they have it backwards. Under democracy and fascism, the pseudo-
capitalists write the laws that undermine the Constitution and 
jeopardize the rights and property of all citizens. They fail to 
realize that the real law, the Constitution, itself guarantees the 
rights and equal justice and permits capitalism, thus guaranteeing 
progress.
  Arbitrary, ever-changing laws are the friends of dictators. 
Authoritarians argue constantly that the Constitution is a living 
document and that rigid obedience to ideological purity is the enemy 
that we should be most concerned about. They would have us believe that 
those who cherish strict obedience to the rule of law in the defense of 
liberty are wrong merely because they demand ideological purity. They 
fail to demand that their love of relative rights and pure democracy is 
driven by a rigid obedience to an ideology as well. The issue is never 
rigid beliefs versus reasonable friendly compromise. In politics it is 
always competition between two strongly held ideologies. The only 
challenge for men and women of goodwill is to decide the wisdom and 
truth of the ideologies offered.
  Nothing short of restoring a republican form of government with 
strict adherence to the rule of law, and curtailing illegal government 
programs, will solve our current and evolving problems.
  Eventually the solution will come with the passage of the liberty 
amendment. Once there is serious debate on this amendment, we will know 
that the American people are considering the restoration of the 
constitutional republic and a protection of individual liberty.

                          ____________________