Do we want to have a look at what an apparently hardcore defender of conservative values thinks of one of the US Constitution’s most important elements? For the record, if you think democracy is not enshrined in the Constitution, take a look here:

Here’s the key bit…

Section 2

1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

You’ll see the word ‘election’ come up a few times too. I guess the principle of having the people choosing their representatives via a process of voting only applies when the people choose representatives that fit a specific niche. In other words, democracy only works if the ‘right’ candidate wins.

Cast your minds back to a discussion I had on the subject of guns and Constitutional rights. It appears that the Constitution is to be used selectively – we can apparently ignore it when it comes to support for representative ideals. The same person that I sparred with on that occasion is the person responsible for this article.

I quote:

Democracy:  A system of “government” characterized by unwashed masses of leftists indulging in mob rule.  Typically, this system includes destructive impulses turned into law, persecution of those the majority deems worthy of such treatment, and deciding who is entitled to what rights, and who loses their rights, to make the unwashed masses feel better about themselves.  It is also not uncommon for democracies to experience great violence, when a faction doesn’t get what they want, and decide to take it from those that do, by force, up to, and including, premeditated murder.  Another characteristic of democracy is that the desires of the people commonly supersede the word of law, in favor of whatever desires they have at the moment.  Democracy is a system that morally bankrupt – and outright amoral – people gravitate to, using it to empower themselves at the expense of others.  It is not uncommon for the mobs to use democracy and “vote” themselves the “right” to victimize those that are an even smaller minority, than themselves, or unable to defend themselves against the mob.

It appears the opening gambit is to accuse anyone who favours a system of representative rule of being an ‘unwashed leftie’, which, quite aside from being quite the insult to anyone who identifies as left wing, rather ignores all the right wing individuals who consider democracy to be a cornerstone of freedom. Whilst Virus-X is keen to suggest that Trump is left wing (he even went as far as to assert Trump is a communist in one article of his), the fact remains that his support base is composed primarily of right wingers. After all, Trump ran as a Republican, the GOP has traditionally been associated with the right of the US political system and Trump played to that audience. It is understandable that some on the right wish to distance themselves from Trump and the Republican Party he now leads, but it is dishonest to place the blame at the door of the left of the spectrum.

The bottom line is, Trump is an egomaniac, who will use and exploit whatever element of the spectrum he needs to further his own interests. He is not necessarily right wing, but not necessarily left wing either.

I’ve digressed. Returning to the quote above, what can we take from it? Well, the idea of the majority persecuting more vulnerable groups is not native to democracy and in fact, democracy tends to offer the best safeguards against the persecution of minorities. Whilst democracies can experience violence, these events are nothing like the violence that erupted during the Arab Spring, or the era of religious persecution under monarchies during the Dark and Middle Ages. Here we had a set of very conservative, religiously motivated dictatorships, that sought to rule through fear and the idea of God-ordained leadership. This was not a good era for humanity.

Another concept is that the desires of the people somehow override the rule of law – well, in another forms of government (such as a theocracy or monarchy) the rule of law is heavily dependent upon interpretation of texts and the whim of the successor. Neither options are going to offer any meaningful protection under law for the vulnerable or minorities.

It isn’t made clear by Virus-X who the ‘mobs’ are victimising, but to take an example that’s popular with the religious right, they have argued (all around the world) that the advent of LGBT rights is an affront to their freedom. It matters not that the religious right in the US greatly outnumbers the LGBT community, it matters not that everyone is still free (under the Constitution no less) to practice their beliefs – apparently it is unfair that the religious right doesn’t get to force its beliefs upon a minority that doesn’t share them.

I would be curious to know what alternative form of government Virus-X has in mind.

Socialism:  A system of characterized by unwashed masses of leftists taking it upon themselves to decide how much of the fruits of your own labor you should be allowed to keep, and how much they should just take away and give to somebody else they deem more worthy of the fruits of your labors.  The government is virtually all-powerful, and the people are virtually all powerless.

There’s another way of looking at socialism. It provides equality of opportunity and outcome and bases what a person receives from the system on what that person puts into the system. In other words, it (provided it functions properly) rewards hard work. Virus-X is following the classic trap of mixing up socialism with elements of communism – whilst the two ideas do share some values, they are certainly not one and the same.

Democratic Socialism:  A system of “government” characterized by unwashed masses of leftists indulging in mob rule.  Typically, this system includes destructive impulses turned into law, persecution of those the majority deems worthy of such treatment, and deciding who is entitled to what rights, and who loses their rights, to make the unwashed masses feel better about themselves.  It is also not uncommon for democracies to experience great violence, when a faction doesn’t get what they want, and decide to take it from those that do, by force, up to, and including, premeditated murder.  Another characteristic of democracy is that the desires of the people commonly supersede the word of law, in favor of whatever desires they have at the moment.  Combined with socialism, democracy transforms into a system of government characterized by unwashed masses of leftists taking it upon themselves to decide how much of the fruits of your own labor you should be allowed to keep, and how much they should just take away and give to somebody else they deem more worthy of the fruits of your labors.  When unwashed masses gain this kind of power, the result is the creation of “nanny states”:  nations filled with, and governed by, people that believe that their rights are a function of government, as opposed to Natural Law, and that they are entitled to everything that they have a desire for. Things government should never be relied upon to provide, democratic socialist works to provide, even if it means virtually enslaving producers, by telling them that people are entitled to their goods and services. To this end, unwashed masses of leftists indulging in mob rule raise taxes higher and higher, especially targeting the biggest producers unfortunate enough to have to live in their society, as their biggest cash cows, from which they can wring the most resources. The government is virtually all-powerful, composed of unwashed masses of leftists indulging in mob rule and the people are virtually all powerless. As is the penchant in democracies, socialist democracies are also very prone to taking advantage of the weak and powerless, even to the point of taking it upon themselves to legislate ways to legalize their mass murder, or outright extermination.

Much of the above is simply the first two paragraphs mashed together. However it is quite telling that the expression ‘Natural Law‘ should come up. Natural Law should be based on morals and ethics, but whose morals and ethics? Whenever I have seen this expression used, it is almost invariably linked to religion. ‘Natural Law’ is the Word of God, for example (which ironically, makes it supernatural and not natural law). It is a personal view of mine that if you possess the power to help someone, you help them. If governments possess the means to help their people by providing health care services, they should. No one should end up bankrupt or having to choose between medical bills and food. ‘Natural Law’ (we could go as far as to apply true nature and survival of the fittest) leads only to the powerful dominating the weak, affording no protection or help for society’s most vulnerable. It props up people like Donald Trump. Is that really what we want?