Can the Republic be saved?

[Fletch]

Frankly, it will take quite a bit of real change, and a change that is going to hurt.

Yes, we'll need the positive expectation that it will be beneficial in the long run to carry us through that change. In fact, you could say we need that plus the good old American "can-do" attitude, and we can get it done. Our slogans could be:

Hope and Change

and

Yes, we can!

Who's with me?

 

[Chris387]

If the republic is saved, for whom will it be saved? There are too many competing ideologies in America even among the right alone, and we each have our opinions on what will constitute it being saved. The mainline conservatives have their idea. The far-right fringe won't consider it saved until we're all living under their God's law. The democrats have their asinine ideas. Their savior would be another's loss. The libertarians have their ideas. The objectivists have theirs. I'm sure there are radical muslims living in America who want to implement the law of Islam. Far-left fringe. Socialists. Communists. Liberal radical environmentalists. Liberals who aren't radical environmentalists. Over 300 million people living under one government. It's not going to work.

 

[Johnny C]

The roman senate tried to save the republic from Caesar and you see where that got them. The republic still died and and they just got a different Caesar.

 

[Pocketman]

If the republic is saved, for whom will it be saved? There are too many competing ideologies in America even among the right alone, and we each have our opinions on what will constitute it being saved. The mainline conservatives have their idea. The far-right fringe won't consider it saved until we're all living under their God's law. The democrats have their asinine ideas. Their savior would be another's loss. The libertarians have their ideas. The objectivists have theirs. I'm sure there are radical muslims living in America who want to implement the law of Islam. Far-left fringe. Socialists. Communists. Liberal radical environmentalists. Liberals who aren't radical environmentalists. Over 300 million people living under one government. It's not going to work.

"e pluribus unum"

The roman senate tried to save the republic from Caesar and you see where that got them. The republic still died and and they just got a different Caesar.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings."

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I would argue that the problem is that our republic is acting as a de facto democracy when the two are supposed to be two entirely different things, with the republic having a government functioning with limited power under the rule of law and the democracy doing whatever the hell 51% of the people want at any given moment.

I think the first thing we have to do is define republic and democracy. Your definitions are wrong.

From dictionary.com, Republic is defined as:

1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.

3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

And Democracy:

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

All Republics are Democracies. Democracies may or may not be Republics. The United States is a Democracy and a Republic. Great Britian is a Democracy but not a Republic.

We get too hung up on these two words, and this poll (and thread) further muddle the issue and present the wrong question. The correct question is:

Can the United States return the Federal Government to its limited role of governance as envisioned by the Founders?

The answer is no. There are too many stakeholders that will not allow it. Elected officials who wield power through collection of taxes and distribution of money to constituents. Federal bureaucracies that have wrested legislative authority from Congress have become self supporting entities. The Bureaucrats who run them. The employees who work for them. The corporations that sell products and services to them. The people who receive benefits from them. I could go on, but it is pointless.

Who is the problem? It's not just selfish people on the government dole as you suggest. Do you work for any level of government? You're part of the problem. Do you work for a company that provides a product or service to the government? You're part of the problem. Do you work in an industry that is subsidized by the government? You're part of the problem. Do you work in an industry that is regulated by the government? You're part of the problem. Do you receive government benefits? You're part of the problem. Do you use any services provided by the government? You're part of the problem.

Is there anyone left? Nope. Everyone is part of the problem.

So what happens if there are cuts in government spending? Cut the Ethonol subsidies and gas prices go up and corn prices go down. Hurts everyone. Cut defense spending and the entire economy collapses because of the number of people that work in or supply the defense industry. Cut social benefits and you also cut the jobs of people that work in for profit and non-profit organizations that administer the benefits.

Again, I could go on an on with the list of unintended consequences as a result of cuts made to federal budgets and programs. "Just cut them" is not a serious response to a serious problem. It will take years, if not generations, to unravel the damage that has been done. The clock will not begin until everyone (not just some) decides that a reversal is needed.

 

[J_Wales]

A day of secession is coming.

It may well be Liberty's best chance of survival.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

You pose a trick question. How can you save something that hasnt existed for a very long time? Republic?! I Havent seen it around here anywhere. Politicians talk about, news media talk about, and even some people on this forum talk about saving and even worse "spreading" our "democracy". Our constitution guarantees a "republican form of government" Not a democracy, no matter what you read or hear. We had a Constitutional republic.

The little "r" republican form of government is now, and has been, dead for quite some time. Keeping liberty takes eternal vigilance, and when the people become "fat and happy" they become lazey about guarding it and political plunder begins to spread like fire. We were set ablaze long ago and are now engulfed in flames.

The question you mean to ask is can we ever return to a republic. It cannot happen with the current political monopoly.

There is only one way it could happen and two things have too occur for it to manifest. People need to wake up from their slumber and recognise plunder as an imoral act and accept that liberty often has aspects we dont like but it is neccesary to have a truly moral people (judging by how Ron Paul did in the primarys, we arent there yet) And the other thing is what Wales talks about it all the time...If he reads this he will say it loud and proud...it starts with an "S"...

This would be the only way to have a republican, which is a representative form of government in place. We are too large to be a republic. The constitution requires that one representative be assigned for every 30,000 persons. When you start exeeding this, true representation is lost. We now have 435 representatives. Each one representing 716,303 people. That is not representative/republican government. We must divide to keep a republic.

I voted no. We will have to hit bottom first, and even then some will look towards government control to solve it.

 

[blamecharles]

Do not forget that all of the Felons this country creates mean less people can vote. We have approximately 15%-20% of our population that are not able to vote because of a felony.

 

[J_Wales]

SECESSION.....



IT MAY WELL BE LADY LIBERTY'S BEST CHANCE TO SURVIVE AND THRIVE.

(Since MyDogHasFleas mentioned it)

Oh for more Jeffersons and less lincolns.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

SECESSION.....



IT MAY WELL BE LADY LIBERTY'S BEST CHANCE TO SURVIVE AND THRIVE.

(Since MyDogHasFleas mentioned it)

Oh for more Jeffersons and less lincolns.

Thanks for reading my post (I wondered if you would)

Im sure you know that Jefferson envisioned the expansion to the west as having many more seperate republics and not as a big expansion of the federal empire.

 

[J_Wales]

Thanks for reading my post (I wondered if you would)

Im sure you know that Jefferson envisioned the expansion to the west as having many more seperate republics and not as a big expansion of the federal empire.

He did indeed.

He also advocated that secession be a peaceful process.

“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.”
-Jefferson

“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”
-Jefferson


The tyrannical statist pig, lincoln, on the otherhand, prefered using the force of the central state (deadly force mind you) to coerce and deprive citizens their right of free association.

 

[blamecharles]

He did indeed.

He also advocated that secession be a peaceful process.

“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.”
-Jefferson

“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”
-Jefferson


The tyrannical statist pig, lincoln, on the otherhand, prefered using the force of the central state (deadly force mind you) to coerce and deprive citizens their right of free association.

This country already shows where it divides. It really should be several different countries, instead of one huge one. I have told my friends and family that the US will be made up of city-states eventually, much like Ancient Greece.

 

[sampo]

I believe eventually there will be one currency and one WORLD STATE!

 

[J_Wales]

I believe eventually there will be one currency and one WORLD STATE!

Certainly if the statist pigs have their way.

 

[Chris387]

Sorry to change the topic, but are all these Jefferson quotes taken out of larger texts? I love reading FF quotes that I find on the internet, but after borrowing a book (Jefferson: Writings), and reading a bit of it, I've yet to find one recognizable quote.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

I believe eventually there will be one currency and one WORLD STATE!

"Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes its laws" - Amschel Rothchild

Andrew Jacksons entire election platform was to "kill the bank" and he did (it came back later) He is said to have wanted that put on his headstone "I killed the bank"...

Now look at who the central bank put on the twenty dollar bill... What message do you think they wanted to send?

Hamilton I could understand him being on the fake money, that tyrant wanted a central bank, and a King.

 

[Pocketman]

I believe eventually there will be one currency and one WORLD STATE!

No doubt there are those who would like to see this, but it's not working well in Europe.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No doubt there are those who would like to see this, but it's not working well in Europe.

Lol, beat me to it. Euro is on it's way out...

 

[spitfire51]

Can it be saved? Absolutely. Will it be saved? That remains to be seen. I'm reminded of what Benjamin Franklin said when asked what the Constitutional Convention gave us. His answer was "A Republic...if you can keep it." If the U.S. falls apart it will only be because those who wanted to see it saved sat by and watched it fall apart (please note this is not directed at anyone on here in particular). If people see a problem in society and do nothing but whine about it to their friends then we're in trouble. If everyone steps up and does the hard work to fix things, we've got a chance. It'll start with those of us here who recognize the problem. It'll spread from there depending on what we're willing to do to make it happen.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

 

[J_Wales]

Sorry to change the topic, but are all these Jefferson quotes taken out of larger texts? I love reading FF quotes that I find on the internet, but after borrowing a book (Jefferson: Writings), and reading a bit of it, I've yet to find one recognizable quote.

Of the two above, the first is from Jefferson's first inaugural address and can be found here:

The Papers of Thomas Jefferson - Inaugural Address

The second is from a letter to James Madison. If I can find a complete copy on line, I will post a link.

Jefferson is worth the read.