Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: |World-Wide_Politics| More democracy in Europe than can be imagined, Monti says

Expand Messages
  • Bob Wynman
    Randist Bo7b aka Bob Wynman WWP Email Member who advocates the Marxist elements of Randism bobalou@wynman.com) Hey, kids, are you SURE that democracy is a
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Randist Bo7b aka Bob Wynman WWP Email Member who advocates the Marxist elements of Randism bobalou@...) Hey, kids, are you SURE that "democracy" is a worthy goal?

      What does freedom really mean?
      >
      > by Ron Paul, Dr. February 7, 2007
      > We've all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times,
      > especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used
      > interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are
      > very different.
      >
      > George Orwell wrote about "meaningless words" that are endlessly repeated
      > in the political arena*. Words like "freedom," "democracy," and "justice,"
      > Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings
      > have been eviscerated. In Orwell's view, political words were "Often used
      > in a consciously dishonest way." Without precise meanings behind words,
      > politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to
      > reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions.
      > In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely
      > meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to
      > accept the word "democracy" as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe
      > that democracy is unquestionably good.
      >
      > The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply
      > majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our
      > founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our
      > republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the
      > Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a
      > democratic government, "There is nothing to check the inducement to
      > sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." John Adams argued
      > that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on
      > the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect
      > pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word "democracy"
      > is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence,
      > our very founding documents?
      >
      > A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S.
      > puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a
      > Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the
      > complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd
      > and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would
      > it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The
      > administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept
      > a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude
      > toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and
      > democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the
      > future. They're certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their
      > country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic,
      > pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their
      > personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from
      > government.
      >
      > Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding
      > Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the
      > history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited,
      > decentralized government to provide national defense and little else.
      > States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting
      > individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a
      > government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and
      > property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to
      > secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the
      > doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders'
      > belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.
      >
      > Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently
      > coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were
      > freely paid, they wouldn't be called taxes, they'd be called donations. If
      > we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the
      > simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without
      > government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this
      > group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government
      > action or less.
      >
      > The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants,
      > always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create
      > equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of
      > economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor
      > presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand
      > (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how
      > such "freedom" for some is possible only when government takes freedoms
      > away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and
      > property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food,
      > etc. for others are coercive-- and thus incompatible with freedom.
      > "Liberalism," which once stood for civil, political, and economic
      > liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.
      >
      > The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about
      > through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an
      > all-powerful central state-- but for militarism, corporatism, and
      > faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of
      > yesteryear, today's Republicans are eager to expand government spending,
      > increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the
      > world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for
      > smaller government have been severed. "Conservatism," which once meant
      > respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed
      > into big-government utopian grandiosity.
      >
      > Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics.
      > If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete
      > meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that
      > America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the
      > Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We
      > must resist any use of the word "freedom" to describe state action. We
      > must reject the current meaningless designations of "liberals" and
      > "conservatives," in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.
      >
      > Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few
      > of them understand the simple meaning of the word.
      >
      > *Politics and the English Language, 1946.


      --bob & lou

      Insubria Italian American Eurocentrist (insubria87@...) More democracy in Europe than can be imagined, Monti says
      Even so, support mechanisms need to be further strengthened
      06 December, 15:12

      Guarda la foto1 di 1

      (ANSA) - Brussels, December 6 - There is more democracy in Europe than one would imagine, though the mechanisms that support it need to be further strengthened, Italian Premier Mario Monti said on Thursday.

      ''We need to further strengthen democratic support mechanisms, their visibility, their simplicity, and further permit European citizens to identify themselves with it, and feel part of it'', Monti said.

      ''Otherwise we risk the creation of a gap between how one feels as a national citizen and as a European citizen, and the latter will suffer from it'', he added in a video-recorded speech that was aired at the European Democratic Party congress in Brussels.

      http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/english/2012/12/06/democracy-Europe-can-imagined-Monti-says_7912437.html
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.