Democracy versus liberty

Democracy versus liberty

May 10, 2001

STRAIGHT TALK
By Muriel Sluyter

Greetings, Gentle Reader,

Benjamin Franklin said democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch; liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

That definition is totally accurate. That’s why our forefathers gave us a republic, rather than a democracy. As Franklin came from the convention, a woman asked him what the representatives had given them. His answer, "A republic, Madam, if you can keep it."

Today, democracy is considered the most desirable form of government. But Alexander Fraser Tytler said, " A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury..." Then he described the cynical nature of democracies, i.e., they typically last about 200 years, and then self destruct, as the people become self-indulgent, irresponsible and predatory.

Our forefathers knew that only a virtuous people can remain free. Edmund Burke put it this way, "It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot remain free. Their passions forge their letters." Yet, 50 percent of Americans eagerly voted for a presidential candidate who said openly, "I’ll do anything to get elected," and indeed, he did everything he could to get elected, no matter how unprincipled.

Has our preference for intemperance caused us to jeopardize our freedom? In fact, we have become a country of powerful wo-lves and un-armed lambs.

Local, state or federal governments control everything we do on our own land, even to the point of confiscating it. The feds own most of the West. They release predators to prey on our stock, then fine or incarcerate anyone who kills them. They club endangered, healthy, salmon to death by the thousands, for their own perverted purposes. Surely, these are powerful wolves.

Syndicated columnist Paul Craig Roberts compared Americans with medieval serfs and slaves. He says European serfs didn’t own their labor, so they couldn’t sell it for wages. The lord of the manor could claim as much as one third of a serf’s labor. With the other two-thirds, a man worked to provide for his family. They didn’t become free men, until they began to sell their labor for wages. Freedom derived from self-ownership, but it also made them responsible for their own survival.

Free men demanded that lords and kings ceased to dictate law. They elected representatives who restrained government, preventing it from tyrannizing them.

A serf was taxed at 33 percent of his production, but a slave had no claim on his production, other than for his own subsistence, which in the 19th century took about half his time. Therefore, about 50 percent of the results of his labor was taken by his owner.

Low income Americans pay over 33 percent taxes, as did serfs, but upper income Americans pay over 50 percent. Some pay 60 percent and if they lose money in the stock market, it can go even higher. A friend lost $60,000, but was permitted to claim only 3,000 in losses. On a 19th century scale, even slaves kept more of their production than that.

Roberts further says, "It is not freedom to own less of your labor than serfs and slaves...The U.S. has become a tyranny, and it has happened on our watch."

That means we have voted to let it happen, boldly announcing to all interested wolves that we are lambs, unarmed and definitely not dangerous to anything but the freedom our ancestors bought so dearly with their own blood.