NOTE FROM THE EDITOR:

Dear readers:

A reply to a Facebook political posting regarding democracy and republic caused a small argument with another FB friend, which indicated to me that there is lack of information in many people regarding the difference between the two. Because I believe every citizen should know this, I went and found the article below, which I hope will bring some light to those who lack information about the difference between democracy and republic. – Marvin Ramírez

by unknown author

Nowadays, many people are not clear on the concepts “Democracy” and “Republic” and often confuse them.
The term “Democracy” refers to a form of government. Our country, adopted the Representative Democracy, by means of which, the authorities are elected by the direct vote of the citizens (articles 1 and 22 of the C.N.)
On the other hand, a “Republic” is a political system, based on the rule of law (Constitution) and the equality of all its inhabitants before the law (articles 15 and 16 of the C.N.)
In modern democracy, the so-called “rule of the majority” plays a decisive role, that is, the right of the majority to adopt its position when there are various proposals.
However, this position should never affect the fundamental rights of minorities or individuals.
For a true democracy to work, there must be (for example): periodicity in the positions, publicity of the acts of government, responsibility of politicians and public officials, sovereignty of the law, respect for opposing ideas, equality before the law, law, suitability as a condition of access to public office, etc.

For a true republic to work, there must be real independence and control among the powers that comprise it: The Executive (President), The Legislative Power (Deputies and Senators) and the Judiciary (Supreme Court and other lower courts).

This Division of Powers, emerged as a way to protect the citizen against the State.
In antiquity, these powers were monopolized by the absolutist monarchy which was attributed the abuse of power in dealing with people (despotism).

Some disturbing questions now arise.

A government can be democratically elected (by legitimately winning elections), but its exercise may not be elected if, for example, it does not meet the needs of the population.

Likewise, it can happen that a ruler is democratic in its origin and in its exercise, but not republican in its management if, for example, it does not ensure or ignore the division of powers.
In our daily reality, there is ample evidence to worry about the critical path our country has taken.
These are some of them: the Congress of the Nation delegates faculties to the president when this is expressly prohibited in the CN, the ruling party does not respect or heed the opinions of the opposition, the executive does not respect the judicial decisions and signs decrees being in functions the legislative chambers, subsidies and patronage are paid with the contribution of agonized retirees, the media are persecuted and freedom of expression is threatened (of those who think differently from the government), wills are bought, indices are falsified official, confidential information and public money are used for political purposes, confiscatory taxes, etc., etc. are applied.

It is regrettable to observe how institutions are despised and, at the same time, it is clear how justice is not willing to take action on these issues while the National Congress remains indifferent.

Can a government then be democratic and not republican?

We have contemporary examples such as Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, where popular leaders who have come to power through the support of majorities in democratic processes, have ended the rule of law and have turned the judicial system and the forces of order into instruments of repression and political persecution.

Strictly speaking, these governments have not ceased to be democratic. After all, the abuses they have committed have had the tacit or explicit approval of the majority of their respective populations.

That is why, being despotic and antirepublicans boast of being democratic. And they use democracy as an argument, in the strict sense of support of the majorities through the ballot boxes, to put an end to the Republic.

So that our country does not follow this path, we must “educate the sovereign”, that is, the citizen.
The population should understand that democracy is not extinguished in the act of election of a majority, but must be practiced every day respecting the institutions and all sectors of the people, preventing circumstantial majorities from abusing minorities.

It is precisely to avoid these evils that the Republic and the Powers Division were created.
Currently the lack of knowledge is such that people do not know that the National Deputies and Senators represent the interests of the people of the provinces that elected them (articles 45 and 54 of the CN). An immense majority believes that the function of these delegates is to defend or oppose the government, by raising their hands and blindly obeying the bloc leader.

It is the Republic that gives the framework for democracy to really work and it is the division of powers that enables the rights and guarantees of citizens to be respected. It is in this way that Democracy can act correctly.

Nowadays, it seems that in practice there is no other power than the executive ruling at will by decree, and that the Republic is a simple euphemism that only serves to justify the excesses of the current government.

NOTE FROM THE EDITOR:

Dear readers:

I am honored to introduce to you the following article, written by journalist James Corbett, about the current political standing of the United States of America, in relation to it’s capitalist-socialist status in terms of how it is viewed and what it really is. This is a must-read piece. — Marvin Ramírez.

by James Corbett
corbettreport.com

So it seems that something in Trump’s State of the Union speech has gotten the MAGA crowd all excited.

Was it this?

“My administration has acted decisively to confront the world’s leading state sponsor of terror: the radical regime in Iran. It is a radical regime. They do bad, bad things.”

Or this?

“Two weeks ago, the United States officially recognized the legitimate government of Venezuela — (applause) — and its new President, Juan Guaidó. (Applause.)”

Well, yes, probably. But the money quote that government cheerleaders will be shoving down your throat for years to come is no doubt this:
“Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.”

Ahhh, music to the ears of any freedom-loving, libertarian-minded opponent of technocratic government control, right? Right. At the very least it was enough to inspire some congratulatory articles from Trump’s base and launch a funny meme or two.

But hey, wait a minute. I’ve seen politicians lie about things before. Could it be possible—and bear with me, I’m just spitballing here—that this statement might be inaccurate? Why yes. Yes, it could. So let’s examine a few pesky little details that contain some harsh truths that the red cap crowd don’t want to hear.

Now before the socialists in the crowd chime in with the “No True Socialism” fallacy, let’s define our terms. Or better yet, let’s let the Dissembler-in-Chief define them:

“Here in the United States, we are alarmed by the new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence and not government coercion, domination and control. We are born free and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.”

Yes, “socialism” is one of those slippery terms that can (and has) been defined a million different ways, but it’s pretty clear what way Trump is using it here. Socialism is government coercion, domination and control. Opposed to that is freedom from that control, i.e., political liberty and independence.

Alright, let’s take that definition as our starting point and see where it leads us.

If socialism is defined by government coercion, domination and control (in the name of “the people,” of course, i.e., “democratic socialism,”), then what do we call it when there are:

• Government agents dedicated to stopping farmers from selling raw milk?

• Enforcers of the state whose job it is to stop people feeding the homeless?

• Government licensing requirements for driving, fishing, cutting hair, getting married, selling lemonade, blogging, or engaging in literally thousands of other everyday activities?

• Government mandated geographical areas in which one can (or cannot) exercise one’s right to free speech?

• Entire sections of the US Code devoted to policing the size, style, color and order of the words “Turkey Ham” on every package of ham turkey (OOPS! I mean “Turkey Ham”), and any number of other products?

• Tax laws in place that tell the average worker how much of their income they are allowed to keep?

Need I go on? Oh, OK. Americans also need:
• Permission from the government to work.
• Permission from the government to travel.
• Permission from the government to play.
• Permission from the government to study.

Oh, and who can forget that Americans have:

A central bank owned by a gang of banksters who print the nation’s money into existence as debt owed back to themselves.

A legal code so extensive that the average American commits three felonies a day.

Intelligence agencies that record the entirety of every electronic communication flowing through the country (and then straight up lie to the American people about it).

And a president who reserves the right to kill anyone he wants, including American citizens, anywhere on earth, at any time.

But, please, do tell me about how “America will never be a socialist country.” Let freedom ring!

Now you may think that this is all just an aberration. That the overarching, all-controlling, all-seeing nanny state is a perversion of the “constitutional republic” that once existed. That, with a little luck and with the right dictator in charge of the system, the country can be returned to the vision of the founding fathers. That American can be made great again, if you will.

Well, I have some bad news for you on that front, dear Trump supporter. This isn’t an aberration. This is what government is. It is its nature. There is no political process that makes it better. You cannot vote yourself to freedom any more than slaves could vote their way off the plantation.
This is the point made by H.L. Mencken the better part of a century ago:

“The state—or, to make the matter more concrete, the government—consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of 10 that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.”

And this is the same point made by Lysander Spooner a century and a half ago:

“The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that–however bloody–can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave.”

Government, whatever form it may take, is by its nature a “socialist” system, at least in the sense intended by Trump in his speech. Its very existence depends on coercion, domination and control. Its raison d’être is to enforce a monopoly of power by the few over the many, and in its modern democratic socialist form it has even convinced those many that it “represents” them. That they are the government. And that the government will never be socialist.
Yes, I’m afraid I have to break it to those on the right side of the left/right delusion: your “leader” is wrong. Not only will America become a socialist nation, but it already is one. The government itself is proof of that.

Here’s how Trump could impress me. If he delivered this speech (courtesy of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon), officially disbanded the government, dropped the mic, and left Washington forever:

“To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither the right, nor the knowledge, nor the virtue. … To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”

But until that happens, don’t bother me with nice-sounding, meaningless political blather, OK?

NOTE FROM THE EDITOR:

Dear readers,

Have you wondered what the government was created for and is it for? Phrases like this: “the very raison d’etre of the government is to undermine, skew and other things. The government, after all, is a claim of ownership over a geographical territory by a cartel of criminals, and gives them the right to impose restrictions on the inhabitants of the regions “, and below we can read for those who were created the government. Written by investigative journalist, James Corbett, this article describes many and other questions that perhaps had not yet been elaborated in our store of ideas. – Marvin R.

by James Corbett
corbettreport.com

It’s no secret that governments hate the free market. At its base, every single government tax, license, regulation and restriction is an implicit rebuke of the idea that humans should be able to interact freely with those around them.

This is old news to my long-term readers, but it bears repeating because many have been duped by the purveyors of socialist dogma to believe that free interactions between sovereign individuals is a scourge that must be eradicated. Because, you see, the fact that food, clothing, shelter, health care and the means of production don’t magically rain from the sky into the lap of every person on the planet means that any attempt to exchange your skills and services with another in return for compensation is slavery. (No, this is not an analogy, it’s LITERAL SLAVERY, guys!).

The words “free market” have become so tainted in modern economic discourse that their very mention tends to evoke a slew of supposedly related and equally hated terms. “Capitalism” and “big business” and “banker” are thrown together in a stew with “free market” so that anyone who talks positively about voluntary transactions between free people in a positive manner is obviously a poor-hating fat cat who lights his cigars with $100 bills and dines on the tears of beggars.

But here’s a puzzler for the socialists in the crowd: Why is it that the very banksters that they so rightfully rage against are in fact their biggest allies in the fight against the free market?
I know this perfectly straightforward observation will come as a shock to some of my readers, so let’s break it down.

As I’ve already stated, we know that the very raison d’être of government is to undermine, skew, and otherwise hamper free exchange among its citizens. Government, after all, is a claim of ownership over a geographical territory by a cartel of crooks. That claim (according to the cartel and its defenders) gives the mafia the right to set rules for and impose restrictions on the inhabitants of that region. To understand how the gang of crook wields this power over the free market, one merely has to examine the history of the creation of the FDA or the ugly truth about the minimum wage or the nitty gritty details of how the financial regulators really operate.

But it would be folly to conclude from the simple observation that government is put in place to fleece the public that the politicians are the ones who benefit from this extortion scheme. Quite the contrary. The politicians are the punching bags that are put out for the public to lay into, expendable fall guys who are put in place merely to allow an enraged populace to let off steam without ever threatening the real rulers of the system. As Quigley observed long ago:

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.
So if interventions in the free market aren’t merely about lining the pockets of the political puppets, then who does this system really benefit?

Well, the big business monopolists, of course. Not only do we have the examples cited above (the FDA, the minimum wage, etc.) of big businesses benefiting from governments regulating their competitors out of the marketplace, but my Big Oil documentary is a case study in how an entire industry can grow up in conjunction with governmental institutions whose function is to cement big businesses in place as ruling monopolists. Oh, how the Rockefellers fell when the Supreme Court split up Standard Oil, hey?

But more to the point, the foundation of our economy lies neither in the politicians nor in the big business monopolists whose back pocket they rest in. It’s in the bankster class that creates the money out of nothing and loans it out (at interest, of course) to those cronies they wish to succeed in the phony baloney economy. And it is for this very reason that the central bankers are always the ones arguing for greater “governmental” power over the economy. Because, in the end, the government is just the mask that they wear to conceal their true face from the public.

Viewers of my Century of Enslavement documentary will already know all about this. When Morgan and his fellow Wall Street moneylenders knew that the public was fed up with the amount of control that they wielded over the country, they willingly put on the “chains” of a centralized, governmental institution. Rather than chain them down, though, the Federal Reserve that they created in fact benefited the banksters class. With the imprimatur of “government” behind their owned and controlled Fed monstrosity, Morgan and the fat cats now had control of a privately-owned central bank that could effectively privatize their profits and socialize their losses.

In the early years, the Fed was used to underwrite the military racketeering of the First World War and oversee the expansion of the bubble that was the Roaring Twenties. But with the Great Depression (which they helped to engineer), the banksters now found a new rallying cry for even further intervention in the markets: Keynesian engineering of the economy! For, you see, it was “free markets” that failed in the 1930s, so the answer was only to be found by greater “governmental” (bankster) control. This fallacious argument continues to influence economists to this day, so that the crisis of 2008 was down to a “lack of government regulation” or “the demise of Glass-Steagal” or whatever other scapegoat could be found. But the idea that the crisis was caused by government interventions in the free market? Why, that’s unthinkable!

This mentality has now pervaded society to the point where the public simply accepts that there is a central bank whose very mandate is to “foster economic conditions that achieve both stable prices and maximum sustainable employment.” And the only way it can possibly live up to that mandate is by interfering in the markets with their magic money out of nothing. Trump knows this; that’s why he decried the banksters’ interventions in the markets before he was president and now muses about how nice it would be if they intervened more now that he’s the don of the governmental mafia.

Many, many other examples can be cited showing how the bankers love to hate the free market, but perhaps no more shocking example exists than that documented in Antony C. Sutton’s book, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. In that work, Sutton demonstrates in meticulous detail how the Wall Street financiers aided and abetted the Bolsheviks, not because they had particular affinity for the communists’ professed ideals of equality and well-being, but because both groups shared a hatred for free markets and free peoples. After laying out the documentation of Wall Street’s support for the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 over the course of 11 scrupulously documented chapters, Sutton concludes:

The question now in the readers’ minds must be, were these bankers also secret Bolsheviks? No, of course not. The financiers were without ideology. It would be a gross misinterpretation to assume that assistance for the Bolshevists was ideologically motivated, in any narrow sense. The financiers were power-motivated and therefore assisted any political vehicle that would give them an entree to power: Trotsky, Lenin, the tsar, Kolchak, Denikin — all received aid, more or less. All, that is, but those who wanted a truly free individualist society.

This is the plain truth of the matter: The bankers love whatever ideas, systems, beliefs and revolutionary movements will allow them to have more power over the lives of others. Central banks, regulatory bodies, rules, regulations, taxes; all of these are meant to constrain the bankers’ competition, not the bankers themselves. Having been created by and for the benefit of the bankers on the beliefs of the naive socialists who think that they could create a utopia if only they were the ones making the rules and intervening in the voluntary interactions of others, how could these market manipulations do anything but line the pockets and increase the power of the monopolists?

It’s the oldest trick in the book, but it still works. Every. Single. Time. And that’s why the bankers continue to use it.