This is why a Democracy is described as the political pig pen of political systems

2년 전

I have a reason for sharing the below quote with my readers. I want people to comprehend something about education that is not obvious. You see the data or information one is using to manifest the desired social norms, must be right. That is to say that one must be able to show that the information is the true logical condition from which we stand and inhabit our environment.

When Thomas Jefferson said these words, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was and never will be." I, am fairly sure he didn't know that the very terms used to describe government or a political society ; Would be changed to suit the ignorant.

This is exactly what has happened. I see this all the time as a curator for informationwar. One has to have clear comprehension of the terms being used, but more than that, one must be able to convey the environment the term was used to define. So in this post I am going to uncover what a Democracy is versus a Republic by providing the environmental facts and behaviors you will find in a Democracy versus a Republic.

Yeah I know, many have heard or read this kind of post before and not comprehended well enough to understand. I hope in doing this to provide a reason to be extremely careful in how we use these terms, because to me this is the clear confusion which is causing the social divide between Democrats and Republicans. I sure hope people remember that together we stand divided we fall is referring to why Democrats and Republicans as Americans must stand together. It is incumbent upon my reader to take a look around the country they live in and see if they apply. I can tell you from experience that you cannot take what was written down in the various constitutions as the case. One must be able to see the conditions with there own eyes, using common sense to tell if these conditions apply.

In a Democracy you will find the following conditions (rules create) that inhibit your liberty, freedom and responsibility.

  1. The people are disarmed.
  2. The people are hungry.
  3. The people complain there is no work.
  4. The people complain there is no law.
  5. The people complain they are not heard!

There is of course a lot more things, but this is a gist. The people are not armed, because the criminals are in charge. The people are hungry, because no one wants to adventure into entrepreneurship, because the criminals just take it calling that theft a tax, so in fact the crime of being disarmed creates the conditions for hunger. That fourth one has the truth of being correct on its side as of course with the criminals in charge there can be no law. The fact of the condition of not being armed is what creates the condition of no need to be listened too. 

By contrast you will find the following tools to protect the weakest (individual), from the groups of two or more.

  1. The people will be well armed.
  2. The people will be able to feed themselves if need be.
  3. The people will create work if work is not available.
  4. The people will put forth, up hold and support law where ever there is not.
  5. The people will speak and be heard.

One can see right away that a Democracy the people are waiting for someone to come and save the day. In a Republic however it is the people themselves who save the day. So when we write post exposing the corruption in our Republic we are armed, feed ourselves, create jobs, up hold the law and have no fear of being heard. Who after all doesn't listen when the speaker is armed. Having said all this, I now wish to explain why I wrote this post. You see I love reading. 

No I really mean it, I love reading a lot. There are times when the writer is so good I can smell the place, feel the very air they speak from. Other times I can smell the barn. Mostly I smell the barn because the person writing does not have the real world view of the terms they are using. I would never write democracy when I meant republic or vise versa now that I know. Many post expose the writer as ignorant about the political system they live under. Just the other day I translated a post from another language and discovered the once again that ignorance is having a field day.

In truth the words we use have meaning only if we stick to what the words themselves convey.


So to be clear.

The United States is not and may nature's God make it never so a Democracy. Not even close. There is only two things that our Republic has that a democracy has. One is people and two is the use of voting to determine the will of the people. Note a Democracy's laws are based on which side in the discussion gets the most votes and everything as a power is up for grabs. . So the 49% are held captive by the 51% and it is easy for the un-educated to steel. In our Republic legislation is passed by a 2/3rd s vote. For such to become part of the law of the land it must than be "Ratified" by we the people.

I notice that the power in a Republic resides with the people.

It should equally be noted that the power does not reside with the people in a Democracy. As far as I know every other forms of governance is invalid, because of one fact. The fact is that violence is necessary to maintain a Democracy, while education is all that is necessary to maintain a Republic. This is why a Democracy is described as the political pig pen of political systems (Commercialized War) and it is easy to see why if given a informed choice : The people will always choose to live in a Republic. Common sense can be said to be in the perspective that we all are individuals that make up the people. In fact the individual is a necessity for a society, but the individual doesn't have a need for the conditions the society places lacking a need for the society, they simply choose not to be part of that society. Knowing why you side with your society is therefor paramount to understanding.

This is why

A Republic is set up to protect the individual from the larger groups.

No other political form of self governance needs merely education, which is a maturity of the mind.

So by supporting the weakest link the "individual" Societies economic stability is assured.

All photos are from I am not responsible for if you think, how you think, what you think or do. You Are!. If you like my content consider a up vote and follow! Peace!

A way to make free BTC and 4.08% interest in a BTC savings account.

Interested in joining or supporting the Information War?

Use tag  #informationwar to post your own stories about the lies and propaganda being pushed on the public.

@informationwar will up vote posts worthy of the cause.  

Join the discord: chat with like minded individuals like myself and share your articles to receive additional support.  

How to delegate SP, join the fan base and more:  

Find out more about the Information War. Click Banner!

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  trending
  ·  2년 전

@commonlaw @soo.chong163,

Very healthy and informative debate.
This is more needed, this kind of thinking. I have agreed with both sides here. In a way, i do think it may be best for a heirorichal structure be set for the masses. Only if their is harmful ignorance within the populous way of thinking. It depends on mental advancement or decline really. Also, i moreso favor the Tribal way of living. Tribal ways do not always ensue the path of war. History shows many cultural tribal wars but can we not see ourselves now? Tribal life of wholeness is very probable in my eyes.

Thank you both.


@soo.chong163 is not wrong per say. To me he has a great mental place for thinking and in fact is doing so obviously. As he explains God is the owner, creator and master of us all. What God wants will be and so @soo.chong163 approach to me is correct. To me however God's will is expressed in how the world works and so natural law is how God speaks to us all. Making the question who moves your hand telling not only in how the individual thinks, but to me also the clue as to what God actually wants from us, his creation.

I think @soo.chon163 would agree what God wants will be.

Men must be governed, otherwise humans do not live in a society, but in tribes in constant warfare, eating each other for subsistence. Rulers must provide avenues of conflict resolution, ie judicial court system, lest society crumble in sporadic outbursts of private warfare so common during the pre-Christendom of barbarian fiefdoms, following the fall of Imperial Rome. That monopoly on legal violence be restricted to government is a necessity for civil society to exist and prosper. Whether such monopoly is achieved via disarming the populace, or enforcing legal restrictions upon an armed populace is of little difference. By stringent and vigilent enforcement regarding the use of violence, government can easily curtail private wars without the necessity of weapons confiscation.

Government establishes the concept of "property," through legal ledgerization of the creation, within which humans reside. By what legitimacy do humans claim ownership of the land (which they did not form), the minerals (which they did not seed), the animals (which they did not quicken), or even their very lives? The entire concept of property and ownership is legal fiction, maintained by government bureaucracy and enforcers, within which human society operates. The populace creates nothing, other than by leave of their masters, based upon the particular legal fiction that operate their sociocultural matrix.

All human social organization is oligarchy in fact, though various forms of government provide illusion of monarchy, democracy, or republic. The forms of the government is irrelevant, nor the existence of armed or disarmed populace, as long as the levers of power remain within the grasp of the ruling elite. What use are weapons, money, votes, and speech, when the institutes of education, propaganda, and judiciary are beholden to the ruling oligarchs? With manipulation of disseminated information, partial facts, cleverly deaigned innuendoes, the interests of our masters will be made to become interests of the populace, the enemies of our masters can be made to become the enemies of the public. Thus, the ruling elite can honestly claim to be acting in the interest of the people. In a representative government, through legal and juridical means, votes can be stacked in favor of the next designated puppet.


I agree with a lot of what you shared, but have to point out that this :

"That monopoly on legal violence be restricted to government is a necessity for civil society to exist and prosper."

Creates massive graves, and the death which civil society seeks to avoid becomes assured.

"The entire concept of property and ownership is legal fiction, maintained by government bureaucracy and enforcers, within which human society operates."

Such a belief means that you don't own yourself as property rights start with the idea that every beings owns itself. Ownership of things is a extension of that idea. Governments didn't come up with it. Such is imposed through the institution, ordination of government in the first place.

I do agree that men must be governed. Either by themselves or by someone. In truth they are governed one way or the other. The funny thing is that physically no one has the ability to move my hands, but I. Thus physically I have no choice, but to govern what my hands do. So if I am not in charge, than I am not responsible which means a lynching of the elite every ten years or so would be necessary for there to actually be law. If this is not the case for you, I have a question?

So who is your owner?


Without legal monopoly on violence by the government, society assents to private wars between rival tribes. Whether chaos of private wars, in the vein of Italian vendettas or blood feuds of the Appalachian mountain families, is preferable to state enforced violence may depend upon the perspective of the individual's sociocultural make-up. Which leads to then next objection.

Man is created by God. Man did not quicken himself or construct his being ex nihilo. Having absolutely no input into his creation, can such a being dare claim ownership to his being? Is not everything of a man's being but borrowed from his creator? Should not man give credit where it is due and dues when payment is demanded? Do the serfs working in vineyards have the right to beat the owner's representatives and murder his son to claim the produce of the land for themselves, usurping ownership of said property?

If your philosophical inclination do not tend towards the supernatural, then an argument within the sphere of natural realm also demonstrate the fallacy of man owning himself. If man is but program of self-replicating genes, driven by his appetites and instinct, then nothing of himself is himself, since he is nothing more than his genetic programming, his thoughts naught but random electrical impulses of neuronal misfire. Under such circumstances, concepts of ownership, theft, freedom, rights, good, evil are all meaningless drivel, since we are nothing more than meatbags of chemicals proceeding towards entropy. None of this discussion matters, and whether ten-thousand or ten billion are laid waste in mass graves for the glory of the state, remains as meaningless as the lifecycle of ants.

If for some inexplicable reason, your philosophical leanings cause you to believe that humans can somehow "transcend" their genetic programming (ie Dawkins lunacy), then what in man, other than the sociocultural matrix of indoctrination, ascends man beyond his base appetites and instinct? Who has educated such man since birth, other than the sociocultural matrix we call the state? Who has protected such a man from he depredations of the natural world, other than the state? Who has instilled the ethics of hard work and self-discipline, other than the state? Such a man has been allowed the privilege of participating in socioeconomic and sociopolitical sphere by the consent of the state. Without the state, such a man, who has ascended beyond genetic programming, does not exist. It is to the state, then, such a man owes his being, purpose, and identity.

Can man transcend the crass demands of his flesh and bone? Can he extend his consciousness outwards and beyond himself to embrace entities greater than himself? When man has shed the myopic perceptions of his individual, singular demands and identifies with the will of his creator, he has been granted enlightenment. If a man achieves identification with the "self" of his sociocultural matrix, the state, he has achieved purpose. To "own" oneself as an individual is to cripple oneself in selfishness and base desires.


Seeing as how God made man the only one who has control over what he does and considering the first part of the following :

"Man is created by God. Man did not quicken himself or construct his being ex nihilo. Having absolutely no input into his creation, can such a being dare claim ownership to his being?"

The real question is not dare he claim ownership, but dare he act as if he is not responsible for his actions? If God had wanted individuals to be subjects of others he would have made it so through natural law and not through academic rhetoric.

Seeing as you have chosen not to answer my question, I must assume your owner has not given you permission. So I will have to assume you have no owner, and thus disprove your stated theory in the most important way. No application to your own life means to me that your ideas are not wisdom, but a distractions from real value.


For what is man responsible, and to whom is he obligated, if he is "owns" himself? The humanist drivel of man being guided by his own "conscience" has produces innumerable misery upon God's creation. Man's delusion in arrogating ownership to that which he has no claim is the core of the rot that infects this universe. Under what principles or laws does a "free" man who "owns" himself stand, other than his fickle whims? When a man owns a property, he need not be responsible or obligated in its use or disbursement. You invoke God, and in the same sentence dismiss Him. That you sense some vestigial sense of obligation and responsibility for your actions hints at your dues owed to your master.


So who moves your hand? Is it you or your master?


I move my own hand by the allowance of my lord, the Second Person of the Trinity who owns all of humanity, Jesus the Christ. Who allows you to breath each day, is it by your will or the by the magnanimity of your creator and master? Just because renters and tenants are allowed usage of a property does not result in usage equating to ownership. At the end of the day, it is the owner, not the tenants, who has the final say in disbursement and use of the said property. Man is obligated to his owner and responsible for acting according to his purpose.


As far as I can tell. God doesn't want slaves, and is why you claim your hand as your own?

Curated for #informationwar (by @commonlaw)

  • Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 8,000 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.

  • Join our discord and chat with 200+ fellow Informationwar Activists.

  • Join our brand new reddit! and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The_IW!

  • Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call Pt 11

Ways you can help the @informationwar

  • Upvote this comment.
  • Delegate Steem Power. 25 SP 50 SP 100 SP
  • Join the curation trail here.
  • Tutorials on all ways to support us and useful resources here