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.