Founders Not in Love With Democracy

by Jack Lee

Contrary to what most people assume is true the founded were not in love with democracy.  For them, democracy was just a means to an end, a tool to be used wisely. What they were in love with was liberty and they went to great lengths to place constraints on democracy so it would not erode liberty. Our system of checks and balances illustrates this overriding concern for the protection of liberty, not democracy.

The dictionary defines liberty as follows: Freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control. Freedom from external or foreign rule; independence. Freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice. Freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint. Now hold that thought as we read further.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This means the right to be free does not come from government and therefore it can’t be taken away by government, thus the term an “inalienable right.”

The term “we the people” refers to a government that serves at the [will] of the people. We do not serve the government, yet weigh that against the reality of today. Look at the pervasive over-regulation and heavy taxation that exists to the point that government has effectively seized your property and sells it back to you bit by bit, with every permit cost, every fee, and in every type of tax. We must ask permission from government to do almost anything.   The alarming part is were are becoming a little too aclimated to asking permission for everything we do.  This is epecially true in government where bureaucrats prefer CYA management as opposed to taking decisive action like a real leader.   

Incorporated within the Constitution was the guarantee to all citizens that we will have the right to pursue happiness, we’re not guaranteed it, that is an individual’s challenge. Freedom means the opportunity to try to better oneself. Safety nets, affirmative action, wealth shifting, guaranteed minimum income, are all things outside the Constitution and they come at the cost of eroding liberty while strengthening the iron hand of government.

Democracy is a tool that is only as good as the hands that wield it.   Democracy without constraints and in the hands of people without virtue is no better than communism, fascism or any other form of totalitarianism.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Founders Not in Love With Democracy

  1. Dewey says:

    Ya mean like the Tea party wish to control all humans by corporate rule?

  2. Tina says:

    Dewey until you can prove the case you are reduced to nothing but a windbag!

    Please name the rule, regulation, tax, fee, or law passed by corporations that has the power to control anything you do or that forces you to make a purchase you do not voluntarily make.

  3. Tina says:

    Jack excellent piece!

    The republic the founders formed was formed to protect individuals from controlling leadership and oppressive laws and regulations.

    If the latest adult citizens, the millennials, and those that follow them ever discover this thing called liberty and the value of creating personal wealth and the power in maintaining control over one’s own future, this country will once again become the prosperous shining example to the world it once was. The attraction that made America a great melting pot has always been the opportunity that freedom affords everyone.

  4. Libby says:

    “What they were in love with was liberty and they went to great lengths to place constraints on democracy so it would not erode liberty.”

    Oh, I did have a giggle over this. You substitute “their own economic interests” for “liberty”, and then I won’t be able to accuse you of pious hypocrisy … again.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Libby, I have to respectfully disagree with you. You claim constraints were put on democracy only to foster the founding fathers economic interest. There’s no evidence of that being true and thats a very jaded opinion not shared by many. However, I’m pretty sure you can find some exception somewhere, but on the whole it’s more than obvious to us that they (founders) did it for the most altruistic reasons and they risked everything in the process, some lost everything too.

      A number of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were wealthy individuals and they lost their fortunes for the pursuit liberty. I can’t allow anyone to diminish their sacrifice. I strongly believe the overwhelming majority of leaders and signers of the D.I. were people of good character who took on the creation of this nation for the most honorable reasons. There’s not a hint of hypocrisy here Libby, I honestly believe this to be true and history backs me up.

      I not only have our history books to rely on, but I have my own family history passed down through the generations. My ancestor was Richard Lee. He wrote the resolution to draft the Declaration of Independence. Of course he was a signer of that document as were other family members. Another family member at that time was Arthur Lee. He was one three envoys sent to France to help finance the revolution. Arthur did the work and Benjamin Franklin took all the credit, but that’s okay, he wasn’t doing it for the fame.

      Arthur Lee was a man of principle and he wrote many articles opposing slavery. He held 3 doctorates, medicine, botany and political science. He was fluent in English and French. Relatives Richard Henry Lee, Francis Lightfoot Lee and William Lee were all Revolutionary-war leaders and signers of the Declaration of Independence. During the American Revolution the Continental Congress named Lee its envoy to Spain and Prussia. Later, in Paris, Arthur Lee helped negotiate the Treaty of Alliance with France. These were good people Libby, this is my family and they didn’t do it for personal gain. They were patriots and they believed they were creating the United States of America for the most fair and honorable reasons. I’ve not mentioned this connection before and I won’t do it again, because it’s very personal/private, but I felt it was reasonable this time because of what you said about them.

  5. Dewey says:

    Right back at ya! You never have a proven case in fact i can tell what is coming next by following the supplied Tea party propaganda…How about real issues right here right now?

    Prove my case? History proves it.

    First of all this is the 21st century. Second of all how did the west get built? Lincoln gave land grants and free education.

    The Koch Brothers Constitution site of spinning to corporate control is just more propaganda.

    lets start with economics, why were the 40,s 50’s and 60’s so much better? Where did trickle down come from?

    A little witch named Thatcher came into power in England. Carter was the first to drink the kool aide at the end of his term, but it was Reagan that sold the kool Aide, add bad trade agreements all the way to date and we have the end of the middle class and a new fascist communism taking over America.

    The banks can do what ever they want tax free, use citizens deposits gamble and when they crash the system the tax payers have to bail them out while they do better than ever and buy up land to become the masters.

    The 70’s and particularly Reagan were a turning point while Carter certainly is not innocent.

    Now we have a Koch bros bought out Supreme Court which now claims Money is free speech and corporations are people.

    Politicians are on the payrolls of the rich and the people are to be arrested and watched closely by private companies (GH Bush is an owner) all using tax payers money.

    So when is the great debate using facts, economics, and the truth?

    Why are citizens drinking the Koch Brothers tea? This is not 1700’s this is a complicated world in which companies got paid to send all our jobs overseas, want to be able to poison us if they want, own all land, have Congress be no more than a broker house for corporations to control this country all while the Banks fund it.

    Why is corporate welfare and no taxes for the corporations and 2% not an issue? cause the Anti-American Kool Aide for corporate control and corporatism is all the tea Party wants…slaves. serfs, and masters

    propaganda WW2 style taken off pre-written blogs by ALEC, Heritage, Freedomworks all funded to corrupt

    explain that?

    The proof is everywhere except the RW Funded propaganda Blogs

    Point in case why For profit Education has failed….History is easy, Economics is easy,

    pretty Sad when a Pope has to come out and say trickle Down was a failure

    Tea Party Koch Patriots lie daily and then refuse to Debate in public with facts all cause they hate.

    Why can Congress inside trade, do drugs, get paid to fundraise and block all bills while the Black man is president.

    LOL Now the best new thing in These Tea Party laws is all you who have watched porn were under surveillance and it is going the way of you could be denied a credit card, job, ect all cause someone got on your computer and watched porn!

    LOL I know the law of averages includes many teabaggers

  6. Tina says:

    Dewey I asked for a law or rule or regulation imposed on you by corporate America not a diatribe opinion on the benefits of leftist, big government solutions.

    Until you can name the ways that corporations control you there is no reason to respond to the garbage you hatefully spew.

  7. More Common Sense says:

    Hey Dewey,

    Take a deep breath, count to ten, take your meds and calm down. Oh, and by the way, your aluminum foil hat is about to fall off.

  8. Pie Guevara says:

    Dewey’s selective interpretation and narrow focus in history is mildly interesting, but really doesn’t change his status or lend much support to his tedious, repetitive hate spew. He still comes in as a Category 5 windbag.

  9. Pie Guevara says:

    Evidently Libby does not think that liberty includes the capability of acting in one’s own economic interests.

    That speaks volumes about progressives. More than she will ever know. You didn’t build that!

  10. Libby says:

    “Libby, I have to disagree with you.”

    I knew you would, and no wonder. This melding of class-based, property-owning, self-interest with idealized political pieties is in your freakin’ genes.

  11. Dewey says:

    LOL nice try, no personal info here

    Who runs Congress and is writing the Tea Party Laws?

    You’re going to tell me Newt Gingrich getting funds from Addelson who is under investigation for bribing the Chinese and that was Chinese funds in that election is a secret?

    Well if ya watch Fox it would be

    ….LOL Best good news of the day is the pressure we put on Alec is working!

    Well I have a personal Bain Capital story as well, but that s for humans with real discussions.

    Corporations run the cuntry, some little state of Jefferson just makes it easier for them to take over. Wake up

    Ya think Michigan is not a test state under Marshall law? LOL wake up

    Collect a pension?SSI? Medicare that is all welfare to the Tea Party,

    explain income inequality and it’s history to me?

  12. Libby says:

    “Evidently Libby does not think that liberty includes the capability of acting in one’s own economic interests.”

    The problem comes when “liberty” comes to mean acting against the interests of other members of your community, non-property owners, for instance.

  13. Tina says:


  14. Peggy says:

    #9 Pie.

    I nominate Pie for the most patient reader award on PS for taking the time to read Dewey’s comments. I just skip to the next one knowing it’s just a repeat of his previous ones.

  15. Libby says:

    Hey, I’m not here to remediate your civics education. Everybody SHOULD know that for the first hundred, or so, years of the Republic only white males could vote. What do you suppose that was? … if not a device to shut out the rabble and expand the interests of a particular class?

    The whole of “conservative” public policy is aimed at keeping the underclass in this country disenfranchised, i.e, unhealthy, uneducated and unable to procure the paperwork required to satisfy the stooge at the polls.

  16. Tina says:

    Libby: ” I’m not here to remediate your civics education.”

    I didn’t ask that of you. I did ask that you give an example or two so that the rest of us have some idea about your concern. If that is too much to ask then why bring it up?

    “Everybody SHOULD know that for the first hundred, or so, years of the Republic only white males could vote.”

    Most everybody does. So? We are not living in those times; get over it! Be happy that the means to correct such an offense was given us in the constitution!

    The whole of “conservative” public policy is aimed at keeping the underclass in this country disenfranchised, i.e, unhealthy, uneducated and unable to procure the paperwork required to satisfy the stooge at the polls.”

    Utter leftist nonsense! In fact part of a Saul Alinsky style smear campaign to keep blacks and Hispanics locked-in on the Democrat plantation where liberal politicians promise them goodies in exchange for votes rather than an economy with jobs available for them to be part of the overall community as a proud, working, contributing member of society….stuck in poverty over generations with little hope of climbing out!

    Liberals have a lock on education and under their leadership and tutelage our overall performance has dropped. Poor black and Hispanic kids are kept locked into bad schools and denied vouchers so they have a chance to attend better schools like the one the President’s kids enjoy. Obama denied that to kids in DC by closing down the successful voucher program that had been put in place.

    Nothing conservatives have ever proposed would “keep the disadvantaged “unhealthy”. Things we have proposed would actually make healthcare and insurance less expensive and more affordable for everyone. They would also NOT discourage doctors from participating…or young men and women from entering the field! They would encourage the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit that would bring fresh ideas to the marketplace…medicines, cures, cooperative clinics.

    George Bush’s tax cuts put more disposable income into every working persons pockets. His Rx drug plan lowered the cost of drugs and the premiums for the plan have been less than projected because of the success (enrollment) of the program. The roll out for that was also successful…it worked! Social program funding increased under Bush…they always do and we have had many Republican presidents in the past few decades.

    Proposed legislation and laws requiring ID protect the votes of all Americans and conservatives have written in measures to ensure that those who have difficulty in acquiring ID are given assistance to do so. Your accusation is a big fat lie!

    Your opinions are not based in reality or fact but in an overall distorted, negative attitude. In your mind, conservatives are nothing but a caricature you have constructed. You refuse to allow facts and information to alter that image.

    You also refuse to acknowledge the reality we are experiencing as a result of leftist policies enacted by this President, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Instead you go on the attack.

    The poor and disadvantaged in this country have been harmed greatly by this administration and their extreme leftist policies. You are either too proud, too stubborn, or too radical to admit it.

  17. Chris says:

    “Democrat plantation”

    This phrase is racist, and you should stop using it.

  18. Tina says:

    Chris the phrase is historical and relevant in context to the present situation.

    Your PC box is limiting your intellectual capability and keeping you out of touch with reality!

    The accusation of racism is used most often to limit discussion of issues requiring solutions and to silence those with alternative ideas…a tactic designed y extremists too secure their own power. You should reconsider what you have learned.

  19. Libby says:

    “This phrase is racist, [Tina] you should stop using it.”

    It’s also a transparent and quite feeble rhetorical device she’s picked up from her feeders, a variant on “The Big Lie”.

    Conservative objections to the minimum wage are patently absurd, obscene even, in that they have no plan (no desire even) to institute any other policy that might curb the employers’ tendency to collude in starvation wages.

  20. Tina says:

    Libby you don’t know what the hell you are talking about…and I imagine you never will, so invested are you in the big lie that progressive policy is more compassionate.

Comments are closed.