Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman’s question as to the type of government the founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49,” said Thomas Jefferson.

A republic is representative government ruled by fundamental rules of law, according to the United States Constitution. A republic recognizes the unalienable truth of Gods Laws and the rights of individuals.

Democracies are only concerned with what the majority wants or needs for the “good of the public,” or in other words ”social justice.” A democracy is government ruled by the unbridled vote of the majority.

Science has long recognized that the opinion of the majority has no bearing on the truth and ultimate results of any undertaking. For example, assume that there was a vote by some engineering committee on the under-sized gusset plates on the I-35W bridge. The majority voted for the less expensive plates. It is clear that the bridge collapse overrode the opinion of the majority. If even one engineer thought that the design was inadequate, he was right and the majority was wrong.

The “Tide of History” commentary in Sunday’s Leader, by J. Haught, highlights a number of democratic (liberal) decisions that he hails as progress which are, in fact, failures in terms of what is best for our nation. Opinion polls and manipulation of public opinion by the media, politicians and community organizers has nothing to do with the true balance of benefits, failures and problems within an issue.

Lawmaking should be a slow, deliberate process in our constitutional republic requiring approval from the three branches of government, with the legislative, executive and judicial branches providing checks and balance.

Lawmaking in a democracy occurs rapidly, requiring only approval from the majority by polls and/or voter referendums, which in turn is, mob rule, according to Jefferson. Executive action by the president is the prime example. A 50-percent plus one vote in the legislative branch takes away anything they want from the minority. A five to four vote by the judicial branch overrides the majority ethical decision of many states.

For example, what if most people believe working at a $15 per hour “job” is the only way to earn a living? The business owners who are creative enough to come up with some process that can benefit from hiring people to perform the “job” are clearly in the minority. Passing a law that requires the business owner to pay $100 per hour and to provide free health care and schools to all workers, should be no problem in a democracy where workers are in the majority. The problem is that the business owner will reduce his workforce to a point where he can get his product to market with a profit margin acceptable to him, or he will close down, stop producing products, and find another way of making a living.

Instead of improving the overall state of the economy, a drastic increase in the cost of labor will only create more unemployment and the reduction of goods brought to market. In all countries that have tried to manage the economy by forcing entrepreneurs to follow unreasonable laws, the result has always been disastrous. Free trade and individual creativity always wins.

In a nation that supports the freedom for each person to choose to work or create his or her own vision of life, the opportunities are limitless.

Democracies always self-destruct when a nonproductive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax-and-spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority.

As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive people to drop out and join the nonproductive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse, always to be followed by a dictatorship enslaving everyone, with fiscal disaster and hardship. For an example of this, see the USSR’s history.

Even though nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that our founders created a democracy, it is absolutely not true. The founders knew full well the differences between a republic and a democracy and repeatedly said that they had founded a republic in numerous quotes and documents.

This is not a battle between “liberals” and “conservatives” but it is between those who believe in freedom vs. slavery. The liberal agenda will not make us free, more moral or safer. It will only increase the control the government has over all people. You pay taxes because of the threat of legal action. You are intimidated by the “politically correct” that deny free expression of many statements that may, in fact, be true. Christian religion is now denigrated when it was the founding principal and moral compass of our republic.

On the issue of gun control, a quote by Ben Franklin sums it up: ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and will lose both.”

George Washington also wrote: ”Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people’s liberty with teeth.”

James Madison added: ”Americans have the right and advantage of being armed — unlike the citizens of other countries, whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

I have received many comments on the Haught commentary that totally disagree with his position that “liberalism” has created a safer, fairer and more secure society. Rather, it has created a society that is more restrictive, less safe and unfair to those who hold to individual liberty and the Judeo-Christian principles.

Orville Moe of Hutchinson is one of five new columnists writing for this page.

Recommended for you