The notion that democracy equals freedom has become wide-spread in the Western world, but, unfortunately for the cause of individual rights and liberty, nothing could be farther from the truth.  In fact, democracy is the negation of individual rights and liberty.  I explain why in my post, Democracy: the Tyranny of the Masses.  This is why our founding fathers rejected democracy when they devised our system of government, choosing instead to make the United States into a republic.  If we are to have any hope of regaining and preserving the principles and ideals of our founding, the principles and ideals upon which liberty must be established if it is to survive and flourish, we – as a people – must re-learn the difference between a republic and a democracy.

We’ll start by looking at the definition of a democracy:

Definition of DEMOCRACY

1a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

2: a political unit that has a democratic government

4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority

At first glance, there doesn’t appear to be much of a difference between a democracy and a representative republic, but there is a big difference.  Sadly, too few Americans have been taught enough about our language and the basics of critical thinking to notice it.  This is not necessarily a condemnation of the individual, but rather, of our school system and our political leadership. 

If you will allow me to do so, I will explain how and why a democracy is vastly different from a republic.  But first, we must look at the definition of a republic:

Definition of REPUBLIC

1a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>

2: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>

Now, assuming you have read all of the posts under the heading at the top of this blog, Natural Law, let’s look at the differences between a democracy and a republic, paying careful attention to distinguish which is designed according to Natural Law and which is designed to circumvent it.

First, notice how a democracy includes the whole body of “the people,” while a republic includes only citizens.  This is a crucial distinction as anyone can be part of “the people,” which is nothing more than all of the individuals living within a certain geographical region.  But only those who have willingly agreed to and are entitled to the protections of the Social Contract which created and governs a specific community are citizens.  What’s more, as long as it does not violate the constraints of Natural Law, it is possible to willingly agree to a Social Contract under which the terms restrict the civil right to vote.  In other words, a Social Contract can be in agreement with Natural Law while denying people who have willingly agreed to be Party to it the privilege of voting.  However, in a democracy, everyone is entitled to vote – even those who have joined the community illegally, or who have joined it while fully intending to destroy it for their own purposes.  Thus, so long as their Social Contract does not violate the constraints of Natural Law, the citizens of a republic are operate in agreement with Natural Law, while “the people” in a democracy routinely violate Natural Law by voting to impose the will of the majority upon the will of the minority.

In fact, it is possible to construct a system of laws to govern a republic that can provide equal protection of individual rights and liberty for every citizen subject to the Social Contract which created that republic where there is never an election of representatives at all.  Just as an example, imagine what this nation would be like if, rather than allowing elections, our founders had designed the Constitution such that State Senators, Congressional Representatives and the President were all changed at the same appointed intervals, but by a State and Nation-wide drawing of lots.  So long as this Constitution made provision for exempting those individuals honestly incapable of performing the necessary duties, it could be argued that this would be a far superior system to the one our founders actually designed as the whole community — Regional, State and National – would have a vested interest in providing an equal and proper education, as well as attending to the development of individual moral character of every one of its citizens.  Whereas, the only interest the “people” have in a democracy is in forming the largest possible alliance so as to force their collective will upon that of those individuals who may happen to disagree with them.

Historically, democracies never last long, and usually end in violence and with great bloodshed.  Conversely, as the citizens of a republic become spoiled by their own affluence and start to lose their morality, history shows that their republic often decays to the point where it becomes too weak to defend itself and, usually, it is taken over from within by a person who eventually appoints themselves as dictator.  This is why it is absolutely vital that those who would preserve individual rights and liberty understand the difference between a democracy and a republic.

Natural Rights are not the same as civil rights.  This is another crucial distinction that is essential to understanding the principles of liberty.   Natural Rights are a part of Natural Law and, therefore, come from our Creator.  But civil rights are a part of human law and are created by man.  Thus, they are not and can never be equivalent.

We need to start this post by defining a Natural Right.  Fortunately, I have already written a post in which I derive and explain the definition of a Natural Right.  If you have not already read Defining Natural Rights, you should do so now, before continuing with the remainder of this post.  This post was written with the assumption that you have been following my explanation of natural rights from the beginning, so, if you have not read my post on the definition of a Natural Right, it is unlikely you will be able to fully understand the discussion that follows.

Now, we need to define a civil right.  As always, we start by looking at the definition of civil:

Definition of CIVIL

1a : of or relating to citizens

b : of or relating to the state or its citizenry <civil strife>

2a : civilized <civil society>

3a : of, relating to, or based on civil law

b : relating to private rights and to remedies sought by action or suit distinct from criminal proceedings

c : established by law

As you can see, civil pertains to matters of society: of the citizens of a given government.  In other words, Parties to the Social Contract which formed and govern a given community.  Therefore, a civil right is a right that is established by law as a function of the terms of a given Social Contract and not by Nature.  However, a civil right must be enacted in accordance with the constraints of Natural Law, as Natural Law governs the Social Contract from which all civil law draws its authority.  If a civil law attempts to create a right that would be a breach of Natural Rights, then it is not a law or a right because it violates Natural Law.  In essence, Natural Law can nullify man-made laws, and this includes civil rights.  So, as a general rule of thumb, we can define a civil right as a right constructed by a law enacted according to the terms of the Social Contract which formed and governs a community and which is in accord with the constraints of Natural law.  Some examples of a civil right would be the right to a speedy trial; to face your accuser; to a jury trial; to a lawyer; to call witnesses and present a defense; and, if you are convicted, to an appeal.

NOTE: Because a civil law is created by an act of legislation under the terms of the Social Contract which authorizes and supports whatever government passes the law creating it, a civil law is always subject to being changed or eliminated whereas a Natural Right can never be abridged or eliminated.

IMPORTANT: There are two other types of rights that are commonly confused with Natural and Civil Rights, and they are “human rights” and entitlements.  Ignorance of the distinction between Natural and Civil rights often opens the doors to those who would deceive to abuse these additional terms for the purpose of subverting Natural Law.  If we are to defend against such attempts to trample our individual rights and liberties, we must understand where and how “human rights” and entitlements fit into the distinction between Natural Rights and Civil Rights.

First, a human right is a Natural Right.  Because all humans have certain inalienable rights simply because they exist, how could this be otherwise?  Once again, I would direct you to my posts, Free Will: the First Principle of Natural Law and Defining Natural Rights. The threat here comes when someone tries to claim that human rights are something more; that they encompass things that – by their very nature – place a demand on the free will of another individual.  Some things that are commonly claimed as “human rights” but which are not rights at all would be a claim to have a right to food; housing; employment and health care.  One has a Natural Right to pursue these things, but not a right to be guaranteed these things.  Nor can one have a civil right to these things.  In both cases, claiming these things as a right would require that others provide something for you, which is a claim on their free will and, thus, a violation of Natural Rights and Natural Law.

The next thing that is often confused as a right is even more difficult to define because – under some circumstances — they are equivalent to a civil right, and these are entitlements.  Look at the definition of an entitlement:

Definition of ENTITLEMENT

1a : the state or condition of being entitled : right

b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

If one is due something according to the terms of a private contract; or the terms of a Social Contract set up and functioning within the constraints of Natural Law; or as a civil right duly passed by the terms of such a Social Contract; then that “entitlement” is actually a civil right.  It is legally due to that person as a function of that person’s Natural Right to contract.  However, if someone claims an entitlement that is outside the authority of the Social Contract, or which violates Natural law, then that which is claimed as an entitlement is neither an entitlement nor a civil right.  In other words, just because someone claims something is so doesn’t make it so.  It must meet the requirements of Natural Law, which is why it is essential that those who would protect and preserve individual rights and liberty understand the distinctions discussed in this post.

I am not sure who first developed these ideas, but I first learned about them while reading Thomas Sowell’s book, A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles.  In short, Sowell explains that, while there are many different forms under each one, there are really only two primary ways to look at human nature.  He calls the first the constrained view.  It is constrained because it sees human nature as permanently flawed: fixed and incapable of change.  Thus, those who hold a constrained view of humanity try to make the best of things by taking the failings of our nature into account when they organize human activities.  On the other hand, the unconstrained view holds that man’s nature is malleable: it can be purposely directed.  In short, those holding the unconstrained view of human nature believe that man is capable of perfecting himself.  For these people, there are no boundaries to what man can make himself to be.  Some have even boasted that man can be and even is his own god.

The following is from a post I wrote on another blog.  Note the last two paragraphs.  They are crucial to understanding the principles of liberty:

In his book, “A Conflict of Visions,” Thomas Sowell defines these opposing motivations and assigns the terms “constrained” and “unconstrained” to each. In discussing his interview with Mr. Sowell, Peter Robinson sums up the book’s major thesis:

Then there is Thomas Sowell, the economist and political philosopher. He prefers an older way of looking at American politics–a much older way. In his classic 1987 work, A Conflict of Visions, Sowell identifies two competing worldviews, or visions, that have underlain the Western political tradition for centuries.

 Sowell calls one worldview the “constrained vision.” It sees human nature as flawed or fallen, seeking to make the best of the possibilities that exist within that constraint. The competing worldview, which Sowell terms the “unconstrained vision,” instead sees human nature as capable of continual improvement.

 You can trace the constrained vision back to Aristotle; the unconstrained vision to Plato. But the neatest illustration of the two visions occurred during the great upheavals of the 18th century, the American and French revolutions.

The American Revolution embodied the constrained vision. “In the United States,” Sowell says, “it was assumed from the outset that what you needed to do above all was minimize [the damage that could be done by] the flaws in human nature.” The founders did so by composing a constitution of checks and balances. More than two centuries later, their work remains in place.

The French Revolution, by contrast, embodied the unconstrained vision. “In France,” Sowell says, “the idea was that if you put the right people in charge–if you had a political Messiah–then problems would just go away.” The result? The Terror, Napoleon and so many decades of instability that France finally sorted itself out only when Charles de Gaulle declared the Fifth Republic.

The threat posed to individual rights and liberty by those who hold an unconstrained view of human nature is that those people sincerely believe they hold a superior understanding of what is best for humanity: what constitutes our “perfected” state.  Consequently, they derive a sense of moral obligation – an imperative, if you will – to save mankind from itself.  Thus, they tend to force their will on others, even to the point of eliminating those who refuse to accept their master plans.  Whether people want to accept this or not, Hitler’s “Master race” was derived the American Eugenics movement, and both are excellent examples of an unconstrained view of human nature in actual application.  It doesn’t matter that both programs claimed to be based on “scientific research,” they both imposed the will of their leadership over the will of others – even to the point of murder.  This is as clear a violation of Natural Rights and Natural Law as one can find in history.

[NOTE: The threat of the unconstrained view of human nature is often coupled with a collectivist view of society.  Most of the regimes in the 20^th Century that committed real atrocities were the result of a coupling of these two ideologies.  The individual who would understand the principles of liberty and seek to protect and preserve individual rights must be aware of these facts as they constitute his/her principle opponent.]

The notion of the collective and the cooperative are not the same thing, and it is essential that those who value individual rights and liberty know the difference.  The collective does not exist outside the mind of man, but the cooperative does.  The collective exists for the benefit of the central authority which directs it, whereas, the collective exists for the benefit of every individual within it.  The collective enslaves everyone within it, often including those who are in the power structure governing the collective, whereas the cooperative relies on the continued free will of every individual within it to survive.  Membership in the collective is imposed: while in the cooperative, it is voluntary.  If a member of a collective wish to leave the collective, it is likely that individual will need the permission of the central authority to do so.  However, should an individual in a cooperative wish to leave, that person is free to do so without any necessity to seek permission from anyone.  So, by definition, the collective rests on the trampling of free will while the cooperative depends upon it.  Thus, the collective is a clear violation of Natural Rights and Natural Law, while the cooperative is the epitome of both in action.

Take the notion of the collective:

Definition of COLLECTIVE

1: denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole <flock is a collective word>

2a : formed by collecting : aggregated

3a : of, relating to, or being a group of individuals

b : involving all members of a group as distinct from its individuals <a collective action>

4: marked by similarity among or with the members of a group

5: collectivized or characterized by collectivism

6: shared or assumed by all members of the group <collective responsibility>

The point of the collective is to treat a group of individuals as a single entity.  However, as it is impossible for more than two individuals to think with one mind, the collective requires a command authority to “think” for the group as a whole.  The primary focus of the group’s efforts then becomes what the central authority determines to be “in the best interest” of the group.  Thus, the needs and desires of the individuals within that group – collective – become subordinate to the needs and desires of the group (i.e. central authority).  This is a trampling of free will, as well as a form of slavery.

NOTE: while the collective often comes about through a process that bears the appearance of the Social Contract, it is impossible for a Social Contract to be created that allows the construction of a collective.  Remember, the Social Contract rests on the restraints of Natural Law, and one of those restraints is that the individuals within a community cannot give any authority to the government that the individual does not himself possess.  As no one possesses the Natural Right to force another to act against their will, the members of a collective would not have the Natural Right to construct a community where that authority is given to the central power.  This is the fundamental flaw in Thomas Hobbes’ assertions in Leviathan: that our rights come from the government and that, once a part of a government, the individual has no claim to leave it.

Now contrast the collective with the cooperative:

cooperative  noun    (Concise Encyclopedia)

Organization owned by and operated for the benefit of those using its services. Cooperatives have been successful in such fields as the processing and marketing of farm products and the purchasing of other kinds of equipment and raw materials, and in the wholesaling, retailing, electric power, credit and banking, and housing industries. The modern consumer cooperative traces its roots to Britain’s Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers (1844); the movement spread quickly in northern Europe. In the U.S., agricultural marketing cooperatives developed in rural areas in the 19th century; other contemporary examples include consumer and housing cooperatives. See also credit union.

As we can see, the cooperative actually exists in nature because it is just a collection of individuals who willingly agree to work together toward a common goal, for the common good.  Essentially, the cooperative is nothing more than an example of a Social Contract.  It conforms to all the restrictions of Natural Law; thus, the Natural Rights of every individual subject to the terms of the contract are preserved and protected.  The rights and responsibilities of very individual within the cooperative are stated, and, should a member wish to leave, they retain the Natural Right to do so without need of permission from the rest of the cooperative.  The cooperative has no central authority other than the written terms of the contract: every member of a cooperative is equal in their rights.  The cooperative does not force its will on its members as it has no will of its own: it depends on the willing and continued participation of each of its members in order to survive.  Thus, the cooperative is in total accord with individual rights and liberty.

NOTE: in Colonial times, communities set themselves up in this manner – as cooperatives.  This is what a commonwealth is all about: a willing participation in a group effort for the mutual and equal benefit of every member in that community:

Definition of COMMONWEALTH

2: a nation, state, or other political unit: as

a : one founded on law and united by compact or tacit agreement of the people for the common good

b : one in which supreme authority is vested in the people

c : republic

4: a state of the United States —used officially of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia

5capitalized : a federal union of constituent states —used officially of Australia

6often capitalized : an association of self-governing autonomous states more or less loosely associated in a common allegiance (as to the British crown)

7often capitalized : a political unit having local autonomy but voluntarily united with the United States —used officially of Puerto Rico and of the Northern Mariana Islands

[NOTE: The threat of collectivism is often coupled with that of an unconstrained view of human nature.  Most of the regimes in the 20^th Century that committed real atrocities were the result of a coupling of these two ideologies.  The individual who would understand the principles of liberty and seek to protect and preserve individual rights must be aware of these facts as they constitute his/her principal opponent.]

This is a huge subject, and one of the most deadly threats to Natural Rights, Natural Law and the Social Contract.  In fact, it could be argued that the notion of the collective is the negation of the individual.  Eventually, there will be many sub-posts written in addition to this one, and you will be able to find them by scrolling down the “Enemies of Liberty” tab at the top of this page until you come to this post, then hovering over it with your curser until the sub posts appear to the right of this post’s listing in that tab.  But, for now, this post will focus on the central threat in every form of collectivization.

First, we need to understand that the collective is an artificial creation.  It exists nowhere in nature; it only exists in the human mind.  In short, the collective is a figment of our imagination.  Unfortunately, because of the way humans think, the notion of the collective is a powerful deception that carries great weight in our reasoning and, even when we are aware of the threat it poses, can deceive us into believing things that are not true.  Some examples:

Someone might say that a beehive is a collective, but it isn’t.  It is a form of tyranny.  There is a queen directing everything in the hive, and those things done by the individual bees that are not directed by the queen are done as a matter of instinct.  This is why the worker bees are called drones: they might as well be machines for all the liberty they have.  Yet, the hive is not the queen’s body, nor does every bee within it think and act as one organism.  It is still a collection of individual organisms working toward a common goal where the only choice rests with the dictator (i.e. queen).  This applies to ant nests and termite colonies, as well.

Similarly, a school of fish or a flock of birds is nothing more than a collection of individual organisms acting in concert.  What’s more, modern biologists have discovered that there are leaders within the school and the flock.  It’s just that the leadership role passes from individual fish or bird to the next so quickly that it gives the impression that the school or flock is moving as though it were of one mind.  As yet, biologists have not determined how the leadership role is passed from animal to animal, but this doesn’t matter: the fact that there is a leader places the school or flock in the same category as the bee hive – with one exception.  Unlike the hive, the individuals within a school of fish or a flock are free to leave the group and function independently from the rest.  Nor do they even have to return to survive.  This demonstration of individual will becomes more and more apparent as the individual organism climbs the evolutionary ladder until, when we reach humans, we find that any attempt to function by a collective will must be forced on the individuals within the given group.

Once we understand that the collective does not exist, we need to understand how and why the idea of the collective is a violation of Natural Law.  We start by looking at the actual definition of the word collective:

Definition of COLLECTIVE

1: denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole <flock is a collective word>

2a : formed by collecting : aggregated

b of a fruit : multiple

3a : of, relating to, or being a group of individuals

b : involving all members of a group as distinct from its individuals <a collective action>

4: marked by similarity among or with the members of a group

5: collectivized or characterized by collectivism

6: shared or assumed by all members of the group <collective responsibility>

From here, if you have been following my series on Natural Rights and Natural Law, you should be able to see that the notion of the collective violates the Natural Right of individual will.  By treating a group of individuals as one being or one entity, the collective destroys the individual.  It is a form of slavery, and slavery is among the most egregious of all possible violations of Natural Law.  It falls just short of murder.  This is also why the collective must always be enforced by a central authority — because there are always individuals within every collective who refuse to submit their Natural Right to free will to the central authority trying to enslave them.  If the individuals resisting are strong enough to threaten the control of the central authority, eventually, the central authority either has to accept the disruption they cause to the collective or it has to kill those who resist.  Force is the only way the collective can be maintained in a human society.  All we need to do to confirm this conclusion is to look to history.  When we look to the historic examples of the collective, we find that this pattern inevitably repeats itself.

This is why, whenever we hear anyone talking in terms of “It’s for the good the common good,” it should sound alarm bells in our mind.  Anyone who speaks in terms of the collective is advocating the group over the individual.  Now, there are a few circumstances where cooperative effort is preferable to individual efforts, but we must understand the difference between the cooperative and the collective.  They are not the same, but, if we do not know the difference, we can and will be seduced by the notion of the collective and it will lead to the destruction of our individual rights and liberty.

SEE ALSO: The Collective vs. the Cooperative