Isn't it strange that Americans live in what is supposed to be the premier democracy on planet Earth, but so few contemporary Americans truly understand the U.S. is not a democracy, has never been a democracy, that "representative" democracy is only pseudo-democracy, and that there has never existed a true, nation-wide democracy on the planet.

Throughout all of human history the fearful and ignorant masses have been ruled by two very different groups using two very different methods. The first group consists of kings, emperors, dictators and lords of the land who gain rule by physical conquest or by inheritance, and who use brute force and physical intimidation to subjugate the masses. The second group consists of priests, magicians, witches, and other charlatans who have taken control of the human self living deep within every human brain. This group easily influences the thinking of their "subjects" and, consequently, easily influences the physical behavior of a great many nice, but very ignorant and trusting people.

History reveals these two 'hierarchical" groups of "elite" male citizens have abused and misused their powers, oppressing and repressing ordinary, "common" citizens in uncaring and often brutal ways. It is, therefore, logical that thoughts of freedom and democracy as concepts were born in response to the oppressiveness of hierarchical, top-to-bottom governments, for if the differences between a privileged class and a common class of people weren’t always as severe as they have been, and if hierarchical governments hadn't been as callously selfish and cruel as most have been, there would have been little reason for ordinary people to dream of freedom from oppression or a form of government called “democracy.”in which commoners govern themselves without the interference or abuse of privileged people.

Until the freedom-seeking exodus from the Old World of Europe to the New World of the Americas somewhere between four and five hundred years ago, the only forms of government were these hierarchical, patriarchic, top-to-bottom forms. All Earth governments were controlled by handfuls of very powerful, very wealthy males who created and imposed their rules and laws upon everyone living in their societies. These privileged citizens—of all places and all times—believed themselves superior to common citizens, for they were educated and they were well bred. They deathly feared rule of the common, uneducated, majority, for such rule might force them to abandon their unearned luxurious lifestyles.

In the Americas, the revolt against England didn't happen merely because American colonists hated a cruel English king and objected to being taxed without representation in Parliament. Actually, privileged Americans knew that the subject of American representation in Parliament was a hot topic in England and that, in all probability, Americans would soon have their representation. No, the American Revolution was promoted in the colonies because many privileged Americans didn't want to pay their fair share of costs for the English army to protect them from French and Indian incursions into the colonies, and some wanted to keep more of their business profits by eliminating taxes paid to England.

So there is no misunderstanding, and to guarantee every living American comprehends the identical meanings of the two concepts, traditionally, a "privileged" person is one possessing wealth, title, rank, or authority, while a 'commoner" possesses none of these assets. Moreover, for the past five hundred years 'poverty" has been defined as the inability of an estate to produce an income large enough to pay for the necessities of life and still have funds enough for regular savings or investments. This simply means, if you are a worker dependent upon a weekly wage or salary to survive, you are an impoversihed commoner. No ifs, buts, or maybes.

Many Americans have never known there is but one true democracy, or that "representative" democracy, "socialist" democracy, and all other adjectival democracies are false democracies. False because they are all hierarchical forms of government in which only some people govern while the masses are denied participation in making political decisions affecting their lives. The easiest way to determine what kind of government you live under is to understand that hierarchical governments are operated by representatives, presumably of the people. But true democracy is self-government, in which all citizens take their turn, when called upon, to operate and maintain government.

The problem is that there has never existed a true democracy on planet Earth and no one really knows how such a political form would function—or malfunction. There have been only guesses or self-serving misrepresentations, such as contained in F. A. Hayek's book, The Road to Serfdom. Contrary to common belief the Ancient Greeks didn't possess true democracy as their females were excluded from political participation and wealthy Greeks possessed slaves. Slavery and democracy are at opposite ends of the spectrum called "freedom."

Over the centuries, opponents of democratic, or popular, government have questioned its validity in many ways:

Absolutely not! Throughout a lfetime, and beginning during the years of infancy and childhood, the individul is totally dependent upon parents and expects parents to provide what is needed or what is wanted. As an individual grows, he or she dociley accepts the cultural norms of the time and place, becoming dependent upon the existing culture. In every society, the timid masses are ignorant of truth, fearful of violence, and run from confrontation. It's why aggressive citizens and shrewd priests have always ruled. It's why the timid masses have accepted cruel leaders, and why they reject radical change despite the possibility that such change might better their intolerable lives, for to the timid masses, the intolerable is known, while the consequences of change are unknown, and the known, although intolerable, is always preferable to the unknown.

To form a true democracy, therefore, the timid masses must cast off their fear of the unknown and consciously unite to fuse the greater political force." Only then will they possess the power to transpose a hierarchical government into a true democracy.

But you should know that in the entire history of humanity the transformation of a top-to-bottom government into a bottom-to-top government has never been attempted successfully, for the common masses have always been too timid, too lazy, and too immature to undertake self-government. Plus there has never existed a role model to imitate,which is why early Americans accepted "representative" democracy as true democracy. Furthermore, any such attempt would be an abnormal human act, but it would be a heroic act—the next logical evolutionary step toward true human freedom and true human maturity.

Possibly. But are the masses of working Americans truly better off being governed by a minority of wealthy individuals whose priorities are differrent—often contrary—to those of working citizens, and often harmful to their welfare? Wouldn't they be better off being part of a ruling majority of working class Americans with whom they have much in common? Actually, in a properly structured democracy the odds of an oppressive ruling majority would be drastically reduced.

It depends upon who answers these questions. For the truly wealthy, or for those who are allowed to enjoy many of the luxuries afforded by unregulated access to the republic's wealth, the answer to both questions is "no," for a properly structured direct democracy would not allow some citizens to gorge on the wealth of the nation while the masses remained abused and deprived. But for working Americans who are a majority in every true democracy, the answers would be an unequivocal "yes" to both questions, for self-government would offer them many benefits unavailable in any known political forms—past or present.

Absolutely not. A small political unit needs a small governing body, but a large population needs a bigger government. Besides, it isn't the size of government that makes it good or bad for citizens, it's the structure of the government and the nature of the people who operate and support it that makes government good or bad. The structure of the US. Constitution deliberately excludes the masses of common citizens from political decision-making processes and just as deliberately favors wealthy citizens allowing them and their corporations to gorge on the wealth of the nation.

One of the conservative right's favorite arguments against popular government is supported in the book, The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek. Mr. Hayak, an economist from an upper-middle class family and a doctor's son, made a very convincing argument that a popular government of the masses could only create a society of slaves. But of what relevance is the opinion of an economist on the merit, or value, of one social system over another, as his, or any economist's myopic vision is limited to such a narrow slice of human needs?

Hyak's conclusions were convincing, if, to begin with, you were prone to believe such things. But if Hyak's conclusions were correct—which in a properly structured direct democracy they couldn't be—would slavery to the wants and whims of the working class be any worse for the mass of common citizens than slavery to a wealthy minority has been for American workers during the republic's existence? Could it have been any worse than it was for underpaid, overworked Americans who were beaten and murdered by employer thugs? Employers, who for all of those years, resisted worker demands for fairer pay and labor unions—and a class of citizens who still resist?

Could it be worse than the ruling American elites deceitfully tricking American working families in 1913 by establishing a private central bank system called the "Federal Reserve System" knowing American citizens didn't want another privately owned central bank and knowing working Americans would naively—and wrongly—believe the word "Federal," to mean a government system?

Could it be worse than the ruling American elite committing the sons and daughters of working Americans to death and mutilation in their self-induced and illegal wars that have primarily benefited ruling elite families? I doubt it.

Citizens of the U.S. and some other so-called democracies enjoy many more freedoms today than in the past. For one thing they enjoy freedom of choice: choice of religion, choice of a mate, choice of political leaders, choice of work, choice of clothes, choice of cars, and choice of foods.

The one choice they have never had, but they might have in the future, is the right to intelligently choose their political system, for neither high schools, colleges, nor the American republic's universities offer courses in direct democracy. Nor does the mainstream Establishment media ever talk about direct democracy except to give reasons why such a political form wouldn't work.

The real problem for ordinary working citizens of any Western "representative" democracy is that they live in a money economy and citizens who possess lots of money influence the laws, values, and rules, of the social system. The U.S. Constitution specifically forbids the men and women of government from competing with private corporations in the marketplace, because in the past some kings and dictators operated corporations for their personal benefit. Ignored was the fact that the U.S. government was, presumably, a democratic government which, presumably, was a government of the people, by the people, and for the people which, presumably, had the right to use the resources of the country for the benefit of all Americans. This means for more than 200 years the wealth of the republic has been siphoned into private pockets while the government of the people, by the people and for the people have had to scrounge and borrow money for social programs that tried to aid the masses of working Americans.

Yes, of course there are. But like other forms of government, costs are dependent upon size, needs, and wants of the citizenry. A small democratic population should require smaller costs—both monetary and personal—than a larger democratic population, such as the U.S. which, today, is a collective of more than 300,000,000 people.

In a properly structured democracy the public—present and future—and not private individuals or corporations would own all property within the nation's boundaries, including rights to land, water, and air. Income for public welfare would be primarily derived from rentals of land to individuals and corporations.

For a glimpse of how a properly structured and true democracy might work and the benefits bestowed upon its truly free citizens, see the book, and the truth shall set you free,

Absolutely not. It's impossible. Democracy is a voluntary process: each and every citizen either voluntarily participates in government when called upon, or there is no democracy. Trying to impose democracy by military force upon a people neither acquainted nor prepared for self-governance is a total waste of time, money, and effort. It is an act of bullying

Gottlieb's World by Lee Gottlieb is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0
Unported License

copyright © 2000-2012 by Lee Gottlieb