The following video has been making the rounds on other blogs I read. I tip my hat to Chris at the Anarchangel and to Kevin at The Smallest Minority. I figure it is worth embedding here too so that the few of you who visit my blog and not the others will get a chance to see it too. Maybe you will show it to your children - I sure plan to have mine watch it. It amazed me, when I thought of it, how often I have referred to our government as a Democracy when indeed as I have known since I was a child, our government was meant to be, and should remain, a Republic. I have not referred to our government as a Democracy because I did not understand the difference, but rather because of continued bad influences over me by the media, the left, television, movies, books and by educators who just never seem to get it right for the most part. I just became desensitized to the difference, but the truth remains the difference is great even though democracy plays a role in our Republic such as when we vote. Yet without the law, fair and just law at that, we would wind up no better off than having mob rule and tyranny. Therefore we who live in a Republic should be aware of the difference between it and a Democracy. With that knowledge we will be able to conserve our form of government, and our rights and freedoms along with it.
One side note, about vocabulary. I am an old timer now. I am familiar with a word used in the video that I guess would not be all that familiar to younger folks. I wonder, if you ask your children to give you the definition of the phrase "on the dole" how many of them would understand it? It is one of the biggest problems of our time, having too many on the dole, and we need to address it and get those who refuse to work to work hard to support themselves instead of sucking the rest of us dry. Having everyone on the dole is the ultimate goal of socialism, and assures that We, the People, will always be under the thumb of the government as opposed to ruling over it by way of law.
All the best,
Glenn B
3 comments:
I'll add this: I disagree with the view about dictatorships/monarchs. That view was wrong as I see it because in a dictatorship there truly is only one ruler. What Hitler said went, people jumped or died. He did not share power with anyone, nor do other despots. Sure a ruler like that has underlings to do his bidding and to assure that the people follow his orders. Just because it is a one person rule, does not me that said leader does not need others he can order about, but nor does it mean that he shares his ultimate authority. That is not an oligarchy.
An oligarchy has power shared among the leaders, a small group of leaders at that. There is no top man who has the absolute final say on everything in an oligarchy as their is in a monarchy.
As a matter of fact all types of government mentioned usually share some aspects of the others mentioned. That does not change them to another form of government, so long as the mechanisms of the other type are used as a tool and not as the rule. For instance in our republic we utilize aspects of a democracy in that we vote for our leaders. Just because we vote though, does not make us into a democracy from a Republic.
All the best,
Glenn B
I would counter argue that every dictator does indeed share power. Any of us who have been in leadership positions or have run businesses understand that there are only "so many years in a day" and an undertaking as large as Hitler's could never have been accomplished by one man. Germany during that time was riddled with power groups, be it the SA that launched Hitler to power, the SS that bloodily disposed of the SA, like in the night of the long knives, the gestapo, the hitler youth, his general staff or the leadership that over saw or ran the actual death camps. If Hitler alone had been responsible, there would have been no need for the trials after the war.
Without the sharing of power done throughout that regime, there would have been no Hitler.
Within nazi Germany, Hitler did not share power. Within the Axis Hitler shared power with Italy, Japan and others. Yet in his own country Hitler was the ultimate power and he did not share his authority. What Hitler did was to delegate authority while in power. Does that mean that others did not have power in the government - no it does not. What it means is that Hitler was the ultimate authority, he was in charge over anyone else, he had complete power - what he said went and if he was disobeyed the answer was elimination of those who did not follow his orders and whims.
Delegating authority is a way to make sure that your orders based on your power and authority are carried out. This is not sharing power - you must still follow the orders of the leader in power there is quite the distinction and it is not simply a word play.
All the best,
GB
Post a Comment