Read Previous Papers here|
My last paper gave a number of explanations as to why the safety of the people would be best guaranteed by a government of the people in a Constitutional Democracy against the dangers of our own government giving unjust reasons for initiating war, and thus reducing our overall safety. These explanations show that such reasons would be given much less often in a nation governed by the people in a Constitutional Democracy, with the Bill of Rights serving to protect individual liberty, than in the present or any proposed republic.
The overall safety of the American people against dangers from foreign force and terrorism depends not only on their abstaining from giving unjust causes of war, but also on their establishing and maintaining themselves in such a situation as to not invite war and aggression from foreign powers and organizations.
It has happened throughout history, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that countries and organizations have and will often make war whenever they have an opportunity to gain anything by it. Tyrants make war, and organizations terrorize, when their nation as a whole will get nothing by it, but only for purposes and goals that are nothing but personal, such as an appetite for military glory, revenge for personal insults, ambition, or private arrangements to beef up or reward their particular families or support structures. These and many other reasons, which affect the motivations of the aggressors, often lead them to engage in wars not approved by the codes of justice, or the will and best-interests of the people. But, independent of these temptations to wage war, which history has shown to increase in number and prevalence in proportion to how few a nation's rulers are, there are others which affect nations as a whole; and under further examination, some of them will be found to arise out of our own situation and circumstances.
In Syria, Venezuela, and elsewhere, we are involved in the material support and direct financial assistance to opposition groups, which are working to overthrow each respective government and replace them with those that are expected to be more receptive to American policies and interests.
In Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere, we are actively involved in attempting to dictate the direction of those nations' internal military policies.
In Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, we lend military and financial support to oppressive dictators.
In association with organizations such as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and others, we have often worked to manipulate the economies of many nations at the expense of the liberty, health, and well-being of the people.
Throughout the past decades, and in nations throughout the world, we have supported numerous bloody dictatorships, and have secured the furious passions and ire of those who have been oppressed with the assistance of our financial and material support.
With these and all other nations, we are rivals in commerce and trade, as well as political and military influence; and we would be deceiving ourselves if we assumed that any of them would be overjoyed to see us succeed in all cases; for as our influence, power, and wealth cannot increase without in some degree decreasing theirs, it is more in their interest, and will be more their policy, to try to hinder it rather than promote it.
In those circumstances where nations' leaders are supportive of our growth without the support of their respective populations, it will also be more in the interest of those people or various groups, with or without the sanction of their own government, to act in such a way as to impede America's real or perceived imperial growth; the result being an increase in individual or group terrorism. Completely eliminating the possibility that nations or groups may attack us is an impossible task, as there will always be nations, groups and individuals that wish to incite disorder; full eradication is a task as fruitless as those intended to eliminate all natural disasters; it is when situations arise such as those foreign interferences stated above, as well as others, that the threat of attack by terrorism or war also increases.
From these and similar developments, which might, if we are to think rationally and reasonably, continue to occur and advance under the current federal structure, it is consistent with all logical thought that anger, jealousy, and the potential for violence against us will gradually and increasingly spread to the minds of other nations' leaders, and other people in general, and that we should therefore expect that the potential for others to attempt to harm us will increase in kind.
The people of America are well-aware that inducements to war or terrorism may arise out of these types of circumstances, as well as from others that are not so obvious to us at the present time, and that whenever these inducements find the right time and opportunity to advance, reasons given by those nations, groups, or people, to promote and justify them, will rarely be lacking. With great wisdom and insight, therefore, the American people consider democracy in the highest regards, as their sound judgment leads them to believe that a good national government, structured as a Constitutional Democracy, is necessary to put and keep the nation in a situation that will, instead of inviting war and terrorism, be more apt to deter and discourage it. This good government is one which provides the best possible state of defense, and creates the fewest situations to incite anger in those who would harm us.
As the safety of the entire nation is in the interest of the entirety of the people, and cannot be provided for without good government, let us then examine whether a government that is ruled by the people in a Constitutional Democracy is not, relative to this current topic in question, more competent and capable than any representative-based government; either as our federal structure currently stands or modified in any way in the future.
Approval from the people is the clearest indicator of the strength of a nation's actions. In a government ruled by the people, this strength cannot be questioned, as the action has received the support of the population. The logistical structure of how this is achieved will also add great strength to America's actions, and will be discussed in detail in subsequent papers. Direct involvement and approval by the people allows the government to tap into the talents and experience of the people without coercion, conscription, or manipulation, as has been done so many times throughout our history. This government, with the approval, as well as the free and voluntary support, of the people, can protect each state by applying the resources and power of the whole nation to the defense of any part of it. This government, in the formation of treaties and other international agreements, will be acting only in the direct interest of the people because its actions will require the approval of the people; resulting in a greatly diminished likelihood that it would act primarily in the interests of individual politicians, lobbyists, corporations or other organizations, as has too-often occurred throughout the annals of our republic.
Apply these facts to our current situation. Leave America under the rule of the elites -- what armies will she continue to raise as an all-volunteer force? If we are attacked, will our military, worn down from years of conflict and foreign entanglements, be as effective, disciplined, and efficient, as would a proud military that has direct support from the people of the nation? History abounds with instances of popular resistance defeating aggression, and it is not improbable that what has so often happened in the past would, under similar circumstances, and more so under democracy's improved circumstances, happen again.
But whatever may be our situation, whether firmly united under a government of the people, or ruled over by a small group of politicians as we are today, it is absolutely certain that foreign nations, organizations, individuals, and those that work to harm us or befriend us, will know and view us exactly as we are; and they will act toward us accordingly. If they see the people of America deciding their own fate and therefore, united and strong, they will be much more disposed to build a friendship with us than to provoke our anger. If, on the other hand, they find us either devoid of effective leadership, or under the rule of those that have personal interests above those of the people, what encouragement could they have, or have they had in the past, to develop and nurture a friendship with our nation?
We are all well-aware that America's enemies are many, and that attacks on our country, although few in number, have most often been in response to actions by our own federal government. The most effective way to reduce potential violence against our country from other nations, or from organizations and individuals, is to ensure that we are a free and peaceful country that does not threaten anyone else.
When a government ruled by the people acts, it will act in the best interest of the people, and as shown previously, it is rare that a people will act in ways that are harmful to their best interests for a long period of time. Throughout the world, history has shown us that the fewer individuals that there are in control of the power of a nation, the greater the potential for those leaders to act outside of, or in direct opposition to, the will of the people. With these facts in mind, it would then be logical to state that a nation ruled by the entirety of the people in a Constitutional Democracy would not only be less disposed to govern and act in ways as to incite attack from abroad, as this would not be in the best interest of the people, but most importantly, when the nation does occasionally act in this manner, it would have a much greater inclination to change its course more quickly than a government of the elite few, as this latter form of government is so obviously more susceptible to the temptations of gain and glory which run counter to the will and desire of the people.
I will continue this discussion on the necessity of changing America's system of government to a Constitutional Democracy in order to create greater safety and prosperity, as well as greater protection for our liberty, in my next paper on June 16, 2005.
In the spirit of liberty and prosperity,