Thursday, October 18, 2007

Democratic Socialism?

A seemingly growing minority in this great land believe that we should convert our form of government to that of Democratic Socialism, or a Social Democracy. They further believe that many unfulfilled "needs" (e.g., a need for national health care coverage) exist amongst the populace, and that a Constitutional Republic is inadequate to meet them. These people are found amongst both Democrats and Republicans. They have been changing our form of government bit by bit by means of Legislative Absolutism for decades, passing laws in areas where the Fed Govt has no Constitutional authority to act. All for the "good of our society".

The only question is: where do we draw the line? Even if we commoners all agree on where that is, it is highly doubtful that the Powers-That-Be will want to stop there. Why anyone thinks that "democratic socialism" will stop at the point of democratic socialism is beyond me.

"Power corrupts, and..." ~ Lord Acton

"There are two enemies of the People: criminals and the government. Let us bind the second with the chains of the Constitution, so that it does not become the legalized version of the first." ~ Thomas Jefferson

That's exactly what the Founders did: they bound government with the chains of the Constitution. Just because that happened in the late 1780s (and this is 2007) does not mean that the rules no longer apply.

Many feel that last quote is an anachronism at best, a quaint dictum that is no longer applicable in modern-day America. Many others, however, feel that it is a timeless Truth---more applicable now than ever before; and the same folks also believe that the existence of a "need" does not justify any means of fulfilling that need, particularly force.

I really get amused with people who believe that the Founders' concepts are "out-of-date", "old-fashioned", and "from a bygone era". Funny thing...those people never include the concepts of due process, free speech, the right to privacy, civilian control of the military, etc.; they only include items such as the limitations of the Constitution on the central government, or the right to bear arms, or anything else they personally think gets in the way of some Statist agenda.

In our system of government, we have a distinct, legal way to change the rules governing government---Constitutional Amendment or Constitutional Convention. Those who sincerely believe in democratic socialism---and that amounts to (at most) about 20-25% of the populace, notwithstanding all the hoopla to the contrary---need to lobby for a Constitutional Convention, or a series of Amendments... that is, if they want to do things according to the Supreme Law of the Land. [I think all would agree that our form of government is a Constitutional Republic, not a Socialist Democracy. Change it if you can, but do that legally.]

This is all just common sense, and so it not?


statusquobuster said...

YES, we need an Article V convention that we have a constitutional right to have but that Congress has refused to give us; learn more at and become a member

Scott Haley said...

Thanks for your input and info.

I shall decline your offer...because I like the Constitution just the way it is now.


Scott Haley said...

Mea Culpa:

My comment above was written before visiting foavc.

I've now sent the following email far and wide---

"According to this website (below), it turns out that all 50 States have requested that Congress call a Constitutional Convention (Article V Convention). Congress has ignored the request.

"Again, the DC Absolutists have purposely failed in their duty! There can be little question that we now have a "benign" (often not so benign) dictatorship in all three branches of the central govt, made up of Democrats and Republicans. They no longer respond to the will of the People.

"BOYCOTT the two-party monopoly at every opportunity."

Phil A said...

Scott, Interesting stuff, touching on the Constitution/Bill of Rights and the right to petition.

is something related. I would be interested in your input on what might be usefully included in a constitution
or Bill of Rights.