Democracy Vs. Liberty

On today's episode, we'll debunk the most sacred lie of liberalism – democracy itself.

In under 30 minutes, you'll learn:

• Why democracy and liberty are incompatible
• Why the Founders had nothing but contempt for democracy and those who supported it
• Democracy is mob rule, and no better than monarchy
• Democracy is nihilistic and morally lawless and cannot exist in a free society
• Any government – democracy, monarchy, or aristocracy – is only legitimate when it submits to higher moral laws
• All governments must be subordinated to religious and moral truth – regardless of what the majority demands

If You Enjoyed This Episode, Please Leave a Review

Follow on X for More Great Commentary: https://x.com/CnsrvtvRbl

Subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@theconservativerebel

Follow on Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/ConservativeRebel76

Email Your Comments, Concerns, Insults, and Death Threats to ConservativeRebel76@gmail.com

Transcript

The Conservative Rebel: 0:00

Last week, we debunked the liberal lie that liberty is doing whatever you want, whenever you want, without accountability or consequences. We defined liberty as the right to do what you ought, not the right to do anything you want. Now that we know what liberty truly is, we can refute one of the most holy and sacred lies of liberalism. The lie of democracy. Most Americans, regardless of whether they consider themselves conservative or liberal, have been indoctrinated into the belief that liberty and democracy are the exact same thing. More democracy always means more freedom, and less democracy always means less freedom. And not only are we told this, we're also told that America's entire national identity, its history, its culture, everything you can think of about it, is based on on abstract liberal ideas of equality and democracy that our country was allegedly founded on in 1776. When you hear dumb people say, America is an idea, this is what they mean. America itself is democracy. America itself is equality. In short, America is liberalism. So anyone who ever dares to question democracy or egalitarianism or any of these other principles is far more than just a radical with unfashionable ideas. He's a heretic who's blaspheming the state religion. He's a traitor who's deeply disloyal to the United States and everything it stands for. Of course, now that much of the left has completely abandoned liberalism and embraced Marxism, in other words, now that their focus has shifted from radically changing our nation to deliberately destroying it, they don't claim America was founded on democracy and equality anymore. Instead, they switched to a narrative that's just as stupid, which is that America was settled by genocidal supervillains who founded the country on mean things like bigotry and slavery and misogyny and a million other spooky, scary words that end with the letter Y that send chills up liberal grandma's spines if you whisper them in an eerie voice on Halloween. But that's a very fringe view that I don't think most people really buy into, and I know for a fact zero people in my audience buy into. By far, the dominant view is the democratic-slash-egalitarian one. We've all heard this pagan creation myth in school. We all know the comic book version of American history, where the founders were starry-eyed liberal romantics on some ideological crusade against the evils of monarchy and aristocracy. They wanted to overturn the old way of doing things and usher in a new, enlightened age. Most Americans emerge from the public school system convinced that the founders started our country as some experiment in democracy, quote-unquote, dedicated to equality, popular government, good vibes, and rock and roll. Just like that one tall bearded skinny guy in the top hat said that one time in that one speech after that one big battle. But if America was founded on democracy, someone must have forgotten to tell the founders. Here's what John Adams had to say about this sacred American principle. Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. And Adams wasn't the only one. Benjamin Rush, a famous signer of the Declaration of Independence, called democracy the devil's own government. Benjamin Franklin said, democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for supper. James Madison called democracies spectacles of turbulence and contention that were as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Alexander Hamilton called democracy the most vile form of government. He said, "...the people are turbulent and changing. They seldom judge or determine right." And I could go on and on and on for hours with Founding Fathers quotes condemning democracy. In my famous mercy and compassion, I won't subject you to that, but I could if I wanted to. But this should be enough for everyone to get the point. The Founders had nothing but contempt for democracy and for those who supported it. The founders disagreed on a lot of things, but one of the things they all agreed on was that democracy is stupid and most people are unfit to have a say in how the American government goes. If Washington or Madison or Hamilton were still alive today, both conservatives and liberals would accuse them of being traitors to the American ideal. Why were they so against democracy? Because they understood that democracy is not the rule of the people, whatever that's supposed to mean. Democracy is the rule of the mob. Democracy is groupthink. Democracy is anarchy. Proponents of democracy always like to claim that democracy is rule of the people, by the people, for the people. The people alone are sovereign. Every decision must be made with the people's permission, for the benefit of the people. We the people, people this, people that, people, people, people. So most Americans will immediately think democracy must be good and noble and they'll accept it at face value. There are two reasons that this doesn't convince me. The first reason is the word people. As an anti-social hermit, I shudder in terror at the very mention of those strange creatures known as people. When I hear all this people talk, it doesn't make me like democracy. It makes me want to run away from civilization, ripping my hair out and howling, and disappear into the jungle to live in a cave and subsist on maggots and earthworms until I die. And by until I die, I mean until the search and rescue crew comes in with their helicopter and forcibly hauls my emaciated carcass, kicking and screaming, back to civilization. Ask any one of the three people who know me, and they'll confirm that this has happened multiple times. So the first reason I'm not convinced is the word people. The second reason is also the word people. Because that word is never defined. It's nothing more than a useless abstraction. What do you mean, the people? Do you mean every single person must agree to any decision that's ever made? Clearly you don't mean that. So what do you mean? You mean the majority of people. You mean the mob. You mean might makes right. You're a nihilist. Democracy means that if you can get more than 50% of people to support anything under the sun, they should get it and to hell with anyone who disagrees and what anyone else thinks about it. I'm sorry, that's just what it is. You can say that monarchies or aristocracies or any other form of government is barbaric and backwards, and you might be right, but there's nothing more crude, animalistic, and unenlightened than unchecked majority rule. This is groupthink. This is a herd mentality. This is again a fundamentally nihilistic and lawless system. This is anarchy. To believe in democracy, you have to believe one of two things. Either you have to believe that the majority of people are always right... Or you have to believe that sometimes the government has a moral duty to do something that's wrong because that's what most people demand. So either you have to deny the existence of truth itself, in which case your ideology couldn't be true because nothing could be true, Or you have to believe that sometimes there's a moral duty to do something morally wrong, which is a logical contradiction that automatically makes your ideology incoherent and wrong. Either democracy is wrong, or democracy is wrong. You can pick which way you'd like to be fundamentally wrong, but you're still fundamentally wrong. So here's what the democracy debate all boils down to. Here is the core reason why democracy doesn't work. Brace yourself, because this is a very, very complicated, very, very philosophical stuff I'm about to say. Here it goes. Sometimes people can be wrong about things. In case you missed it, sometimes people can be wrong about things. In fact, sometimes the majority of people can be wrong about things. All at the same time, the majority can be wrong. Does that mean we should do things that are wrong just because that's what most people happen to want at the moment? If your answer is no, then you don't believe in democracy. If your answer is yes, then you have fallen into moral derangement and nihilism. Here's all the proof you need. In 1934, 90% of Germans voted to give Adolf Hitler absolute power. Call me a Nazi all you want, but I don't think the majority of German voters should have gotten the Nazi regime they wanted, because I'm not a big fan of Nazis and Hitler. Don't know about you. But call me a Nazi for saying that all you like. Do it to your heart's content. So if you think the majority of people should get whatever and whoever they vote for, you have to think it was perfectly legitimate that Adolf Hitler became dictator of Germany in 1934. You have to think that. Because if you don't, you're admitting that sometimes the majority shouldn't get what they want. You're admitting democracy needs to have some very severe limits on it. Even when 90% of people want something, they should be denied that thing in some cases. You're admitting there's an objective moral law that must never be violated, no matter how many people demand it. Here's another example, just to make the point even clearer. It is a fact that before slavery was abolished in the United States, most Americans supported it. That is a fact. The slaves didn't support it, but the majority of Americans supported it. Do you think that it was just and acceptable that slavery continued? If your answer is no, you're again admitting that the majority can support evil things, and that the will of the majority should be denied, sometimes even by force, when the majority wills bad things. So in order to remain a supporter of democracy, in order to remain a liberal, You have to believe that both Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime and American slavery were perfectly justified. And I don't think most liberals want to do that, considering that the two things they love to do the most is accuse people on the right of being Nazis and racists. If you've listened to so far of this podcast, I have a feeling you're interested in it. And if that's true, please consider leaving a review wherever you're listening to this podcast. Now let's get back to the episode. Democracy can lead to some very bad things. Democracy is just as bad or worse than monarchy. The amount of say the majority has over its government is ultimately meaningless. It doesn't matter where a government gets its power from. It matters what the government does with its power. Any form of government, democracy, aristocracy, monarchy, a hybrid system, anything you can think of, is at best a means to an end. It should never be the end in and of itself. Any form of government is a path you hope will lead you to a destination. The path... is not the destination. The destination is at the end of the path, or at least you hope it's at the end of the path. The destination is liberty, prosperity, moral order, and the rule of law. Democracy isn't inherently any more moral or just than any other system. Democracies aren't any less tyrannical than ancient monarchies. In fact, modern democracy has proven to be more tyrannical than ancient monarchies. Just look at the difference between Britain and France during the French Revolution. Let me ask you this, which country do you think was freer at the time? The avowedly democratic, egalitarian regime that mass-slaughtered 17,000 of its own citizens and started a continental war of aggression that lasted for two decades and claimed untold lives? Or the monarchy of England? which enjoyed stability and prosperity and led the charge to stop france's reign of terror which was freer obviously the monarchy was freer than the democracy Which do you think was freer? Our nation under the British Empire, when we had to pay a 3% tax on tea, or our nation under our new American Empire, where we have to hand over half of everything we earn to the government, where the government has unconstitutional surveillance programs to spy on all our online activity, sends us to die in foreign wars that are no longer possible, concern of ours allows our national sovereignty to be undermined with the illegal alien invasion which do you think is worse obviously our current system is worse than what we rebelled against in the American Revolution if you look at American history there is a direct correlation between between America becoming more democratic and America becoming worse and more tyrannical and more immoral. This is why the founders rejected democracy and instead founded a constitutional republic. They understood that democracy was a recipe for moral relativism, anarchy, and societal collapse. The Founding Fathers created a constitutional republic, not a democracy. And the difference is that a constitutional republic is, as John Adams said, a government of laws and not of men. Whereas a democracy is a government of men and not of laws. In a constitutional republic, government is under the law, not above the law. Government is bound by natural law, morality, religion, and truth. In a constitutional republic, citizens still have a say over what happens in their government, but there are limits to their will. There are checks on their power. They cannot Just do a bad thing because that's what the majority of people want. Government is bound by the limits of the moral law. And any government that isn't bound by those limits is a bad and unjust government. It is a tyranny. Doesn't matter if it's a democracy, a monarchy, whatever it is, it's bad. A government that is bound by those limits is a good government. Doesn't matter if it's a republic, a democracy, a monarchy, whatever it is, it's good. A good government does good things. A bad government does bad things. Whether a government is good or bad has nothing to do with how much say the majority has. It has nothing to do with the source of its politicians' power. It has everything to do with whether the government operates under the law or above the law. And that's why the Founding Fathers had restrictions on what the majority could do. That's why the Founding Fathers only let a very tiny percentage of people vote. That's why the people couldn't even directly vote for the president or for senators. Under the original republic, the Founding Fathers started. And I'd argue we should return to that. We should return to having some common sense restrictions on voting. Some common sense limits on democracy. People always say, That our main problems are that we have this two-party system, that we don't have term limits, that we have all these lobbyists. They think all of these things are the source of all of our political problems. And while all of those things are bad, all of those things need to be reformed, they're not the root cause of what's wrong with our country. The root cause is that we let stupid people vote who will continually re-elect sociopathic tyrants to rule over them. Why are our politicians not accountable to the people? It's not because they don't have to stand up to the vote of the people, it's because the people don't hold them accountable. So how about we stop letting stupid people vote? How about we put some common sense Limitations on democracy. How about instead of having mob rule, we return to having a government of laws and not of men? How about we reject democracy and mob rule and return to the constitutional republic our founding fathers envisioned? Because it's only then that we can truly begin to solve America's problems. Thanks for listening to this episode of The Conservative Rebel. If you liked it, please leave a review wherever you're listening to this podcast. It helps the show out enormously and helps us reach even more people. Thanks again.