Death to Democracy

Posted on March 23, 2011 by JtowneJeff in Articles

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America; and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, with Liberty and justice for all.”  We all know this verse as our national pledge.  We recite it at court, at school, and at various other gatherings.  But how many of us truly understand the words and their import to our form of government?

The American form of government is commonly referenced as a democracy, both among it’s citizens and abroad.  However, a true democracy has never existed for any length of time in the history of civilization, due largely to that fact that it requires the full participation of the people in all legislative and governmental processes.  By nature, individuals will become too occupied with their own daily routines and obligations to make time to participate at the level required by a true democracy.  The larger the population grows, the less likely it is to have the people’s full participation.  The same is true as a society or nation grows in physical size, either through conquest or exploration.

In contrast, a Republic can support the growth of a nation in both size and numbers.  One of America’s Founders, James Madison, defined a republic in this way:  “… a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.”  Essentially, the people are grouped together based on population and geography to elect their governmental representatives, who then assemble with the other elected representatives to do the bidding of those whom elected them.  In this representative form of government, the mass of the people have a direct voice in the public affairs while not needing to devote countless hours to the process.

Over one hundred years ago, an ideological war was erupting in America, very similar to what can be seen occurring today.  In the early 1900’s, the spread of socialism was approaching pandemic proportions across the globe.  And in 1905, a group of about 100 people gathered together in New York and formed what they called the ISS, or Intercollegiate Socialist Society.  This movement spread quickly across America, and soon had charters on over 60 college campuses from coast to coast.  One of the ISS co-directors, Harry Laidler, claimed his group’s mission to be to “throw light on the world-wide movement of industrial democracy known as socialism.”  Their slogan was “Production for use, not for profit.”  However, in 1921, the USSR and the violence associated with their involvement in World War I, had given the word ‘socialism’ a sour taste, especially in America.  It was for this reason that the ISS decided to change it’s name to ‘The League for Industrial Democracy’.  But socialism is defined as government control of the means of production and distribution of goods, quite the opposite of the classical meaning of a democracy.  The word ‘democracy’ was being misused to carry the idea that through the nationalization of production and distribution of goods, all of America’s resources would be the property of ‘the people’.

Several device were utilized in an effort to convey to the people the distinctions, in fact the sharp contrasts, between socialism and democracy, and republics, including a U.S. Army training manual.  Despite these efforts, America continued to be identified as a ‘democracy’, primarily in the media and in school text books.  President Woodrow Wilson didn’t help the matter when he declared The Great War to be our effort to “make the world safe for democracy.”  Of course, Wilson had surrounded himself with many of the ISS’ early recruits, who likely encouraged this slogan.

Following World War II, as Americans were readjusting to a normal life, they also began to see the word ‘democracy’ in a new light.  Throughout the war, the Communists, National Socialists of Germany, and other socialist across Europe had all blatantly abused the word democracy so much that had become virtuously synonymous with socialism.  Additionally, socialism was beginning to look far less appealing to the everyday American.  Between their reputation of violence and vitriol and their fully evident economic shortcomings, Socialist states around the world were proving to be utter failures, as far as Americans were concerned.  With this came a very subtle adjustment to the American general way of thinking.  Although they still referred to the United States as a democracy, mentally the word was being more and more equated with the traditional Constitutional Republic that America truly is.

Decades have passed since then, and many things have changed and evolved in American political culture.  The rise and growth of the Progressive movement, for example, shares many similarities with the League of Industrial Democracy, simply under a new name.  ‘Progress’ has taken the place of ‘democracy’ in a sense that those in the progressive movement who seek to bring about a socialistic change have realized that there is still a connection between socialism and democracy, and have elected to simply rename the same old story.

Sadly, one need only step foot outside America to realize that the words ‘democracy’ and ‘socialism’ are still very much intertwined elsewhere throughout the Earth.  Many socialists, though they also refer to America as a democracy, believe that we are not “democratic enough”.  Their definition of democracy very much mirrors that of the ISS, that by government control, possession then belongs to the people.  There are even some in America that share these sentiments; that equate socialism to democracy, and therefore urge the socialization or nationalization of America.

The FCC’s Illegal and Unconstitutional Power Grab

Posted on January 12, 2011 by joshpeterson in Opinion

The Beginning of the End

The Internet was born as a child of the American virtues of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – as outlined in the Declaration of Independence by our Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, as granted to us as Unalienable Rights by God.  For the past twenty years or so, the Internet has also been an experiment in the virtues of unregulated markets, creativity, competition and innovation, cooperation, and sheer will.

The FCC action on December 21, 2010 to regulate, and supposedly protect, what exists today as the Internet against an improbable crisis was not only an infringement upon those virtues; it was an unconstitutional attack upon our Unalienable Rights.

No Longer the Wild West

There was once a saying that the Internet was like the Wild West – a place where anything goes.  This may have been a true condition of the arena at one time, but humans also possess the ability to self-organize and cooperate.  Humanity, as all surviving citizens of Nature do, adapts to its environment under threat of extinction.

We are resilient because God has made us so.  Out of chaos and anarchy have risen communities and authoritative bodies and persons towards which others appeal.   We have made the wilderness smaller, and more manageable.

Not only have self-governing communities where one may not infringe upon the rights of another without facing repercussion and penalty arisen, but these entities thrive based on an attitude of cooperation towards the improvement of the quality of life of those community members.

Due to these socially innate mechanisms the Internet, therefore, is no longer a place where anything goes.  Those who wish to regulate the Internet are truly blind to the Internet, as it exists today, believing it to still be entrenched in its anarchic beginnings.

The experience of one person within an online community differs vastly from another in that same community, and from others in other communities.  The Internet, as it is so affectionately called, simply does not exist.  Instead, “it” exists as a parceled, manageable, and self-correcting collection of networks.

The Consumer Wins

Filters and peer recommendation services have risen to make sense of information overload; again, a product of the type of self-governance that exists within the community.  There was no legislative mandate that orchestrated the genesis of these things.

The Internet is a vast place, but thanks to Google, Amazon, ebay, Facebook, iTunes, and so many other companies, there is not one Internet…there are Internets – networks and communities which have sprung up around these companies based on the experience these companies offer.

In the same way, the smartphone has created faster, and more resilient mobile networks at affordable costs – Why? The iPhone has made the smartphone an accessible technology to the average person.  There is not one phone carrier; there are carriers.

At one time, many people were jumping ship and breaking contracts with their existing carriers for the chance to own an iPhone, exclusive to only AT&T.  In order to compete with AT&T, other carriers began emphasizing other traits of theirs they believed won out over the characteristics of a single phone: better coverage, faster broadband networks, more helpful customer service, more affordable all-in-one phone plans, and ultimately, their own lines of phones competitive with an iPhone.

The consumer won out because of innovation and competition on the part of companies, both broadband carriers and phone manufacturers, to the point that it is now possible to order for free a brand new smartphone agreeing to a two-year contract with a particular carrier.  This was unheard of even five years ago.

Out of this revelation we see that people are not loyal to a provider or carrier; they are loyal to the things they can experience via the provider and technology.  If their ability to encounter these experiences is threatened, they will jump ship or revolt.

The Republic Loses

[Photo by Thorne Enterprises]

Some argue that the FCC imposition was a violation of the remnants of the free market.  This, however, is only part of a major problem.  As FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell stated:

The FCC is not Congress.  We cannot make laws.  Legislating is the sole domain of the directly elected representatives of the American people.

Also, in a December 19, 2010 OpEd published on WSJ.com, McDowell reminds us, “In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.”

The FCC is in severe breach of the Constitution in its attempts to outwit two branches of the United States Government.  Who on Earth do these people think they are?  For those who incorrectly misunderstand the Constitution to be outdated, let this be a teaching moment: This is exactly the type of offense the delegated powers defined in the Constitution – law of the land – the supreme law of the land – guard against!  The timeless architecture of the Constitution protects the liberty of the people from anyone who might assault that God-given right.

The FCC, in conducting its vote, acted unconstitutionally – therefore, illegally – outside of its jurisdiction, and in offense towards the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.  The Internet is not like a national park that must be preserved and protected against destruction and extinction; it is a cooperative network of self-correcting communities comprised of free and mutually cooperative agents.

Grab All You Can

Principally, the ethics of business – whether conducted through the Web or brick-and-mortar stores, remain the same.  Those that fear the ugly takeover of the web by business need not only a real world lesson in business economics, but also human nature.  Those that protest whether or not the FCC voted in fairness over one way or another are missing the point.

There is a social agreement amongst Internet communities of the respect of the rights of the individuals and entities within those communities.  Power and credibility are socially granted, not taken.  This is the same for governmental powers, and this is a power grab the FCC has no right to take.