Democracy and the Constitution

RUSH: Here’s Andre in Ridgefield, Connecticut. Welcome to the EIB Network, sir. Great to have you here. CALLER: Thanks very much, Rush. RUSH: You bet. CALLER: Mega dittos. Rush, what I wanted to talk to you about is democracy. And when people today say democracy, in everybody’s mind what we’re saying is one man, one vote, which is called equal suffrage. Usually universal suffrage is also attached to that. And my simple thought is that this type of democracy is, number one detrimental to liberty, number two, a natural political system of Marxism. And let me explain why. RUSH: Well, now, before you dig deep into this, most people really understand that what we have here is not a democracy. It’s just a term people use. Like I myself will describe the Western socialist countries as Western socialist democracies simply because they do vote but they are still socialist democracies. But democracy is mob rule at its bare minimum. Most people know that. CALLER: Yes, Rush, except I would differ a little bit in terminology. Of course the democracies that we have all around the world are socialist democracies. But this is because they are one man, one vote. Socialism just slows (unintelligible). And this is why. When it’s one man, one vote, the majority of people always have an incentive to redistribute wealth, to expropriate wealth of the top few and redistribute it among themselves. RUSH: Among themselves is the key. CALLER: Of course. RUSH: Yes, of course. CALLER: Right. And so you see, the democracy, the kind of democracy that, for example, our Founding Fathers tried to implement with the Constitution was not one man, one vote democracy. RUSH: No. It’s a republic. It’s a representative republic. CALLER: Well, by republic, they just meant representative democracy. What I’m talking about is something else. Yeah, when Congress talk about that, they differentiated between democracy and republic, but what they meant by that was something else. By republic they meant representative democracy, which was what everybody has today in the world. By democracy they meant, and they were negative about it, they meant a form of government where everything is decided by referenda. And what they felt is that it should be representative democracy (unintelligible) there is a layer between the will of the people and the actual law, which are their representatives. But the form of democracy that they tried to institute in part was, for example, the original provision in the Constitution which was overturned by the 16th Amendment, which was the income tax, was that each state has as many representatives in Congress — RUSH: Okay, Andre, I’ve gotta stop here ’cause I have 15 seconds. I’m gonna hold you through the break, but I don’t really know where this is going. I’m assuming you think that democracies are harmful, but I haven’t heard you say so yet. So if I’m right, tell me why you think that when we get back, which we’ll be back soon. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Okay, we’re back to Andre in Ridgefield, Connecticut. Now, Andre, I gather that you want to tell us that Western democracies are harmful. You’ve been talking about the Founding Fathers. Now, our federal system with the checks and balances was to keep power out of the hands of the mob. What is it about our democracy that you think is harmful? How is it? CALLER: The democracy which eventually came to be is one man, one vote. It wasn’t so from the outset, and the (unintelligible) thing about that sort of democracy, I call egalitarian, is that the majority always has an incentive to demand redistribution of wealth, to expropriate from the top few and redistribute it to themselves by the means of government. And therefore it’s incompatible with liberty. Liberty, of course, must respect private property. We started from utmost respect of private property, and through advances and inroads that egalitarian democracy made were very, very far from that ideal. And I’m afraid — RUSH: Okay. So I’m still trying to figure out who you’re mad at, or who is responsible for this? CALLER: Oh, oh, oh. I’m not mad at anybody. The Founding Fathers just made mistakes and miscalculations. I’m not blaming them. Their task was formidable. They did not have the mathematical machinery, if you wish, of today to figure things out. They did not have the benefit of our experience looking back two centuries. No, I’m not mad at anybody. I’m just saying that they miscalculated, unfortunately. RUSH: Okay, so what are you suggesting, then? CALLER: Oh, well, I’m afraid it’s too late for our Western — RUSH: Oh, it’s too late. Oh. CALLER: No, no, no. Not in general. Not in general. What I’m suggesting is a form of democracy which was partially instituted in the Constitution where each vote is exactly proportionate by the amount of taxes expropriated from you minus the benefits that you get back from the government, specific benefits. RUSH: Okay. All right. CALLER: This would remove incentive to redistribute wealth. RUSH: I see. Okay. I think I got it now. Andre, thanks for the call, I appreciate it. I’m sitting here, I don’t know what the solution is, one man, one vote, if that’s the problem, we really don’t have one man, one vote. My representative represents a whole bunch of people. I must confess, folks, I’d like to help out here but I’m clueless. I don’t know what the problem or, better yet, I don’t know what the alternative is. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Now, as to Andre, I went back and I was reading the transcript of his call. My problem there, just to be honest with you, is I didn’t know what inspired the call. I know it’s Open Line Friday, but I was trying to figure it out. ‘Okay, what could he possibly be talking about that we might-a talked about today that he didn’t say?’ I’m trying to relate it, trying to understand it, and I went back and I read enough of the transcript, and I think what old Andre was saying is the problem with democracies is that people can vote themselves money. Is that what he was trying to say? You talk about this ‘one man, one vote’ business. If you go back in the original days, only people who owned property could vote. Only landowners, people of property, could vote. Once the vote was… This is his theory now, just telling you what he’s saying. In a democracy, everybody gets a vote, well, obviously when people figure out that they can get themselves some money from the Treasury even though they don’t own anything, what’s to stop ’em? Inherently he was doing a roundabout version of Tocqueville, and maybe not Tocqueville. I often get confused. There are so many… (interruption) Well, it’s a great quote and it’s often attributed to people incorrectly, and I always get confused over who said it. But it was basically once people figure out that they can vote themselves money from the Treasury, then doctorine of Democracy is over. Eventually it all comes crashing down upon everybody. But that’s what he was talking about. And it wasn’t related to anything. It was actually a good Open Line Friday call. I also was not understanding every word he said. It’s not his problem, it’s mine. It’s a cochlear implant problem, which is why I have Dawn here who transcribes calls like that in case I can’t understand everything being said. It took me awhile to catch up, but eventually I did.

        

                                

                                «A Fed Up Lifelong Educator
                        
                                        

                        A Chernobyl Survivor Speaks»