Religion

---

Messianics reject the absurdity of democracy. There is no logical nor biblical basis for thinking all persons have an inalienable right to assign Power of Attorney to a ruler. Indeed not only is the idea absurd in and of itself, the idea that rational people would abdicate their traditional right is frightening.

Very few persons entertain the idea of democracy in its simple and original sense. What most of us think is democracy is now referred to as Direct Democracy since it is rarely used. What liberals call democracy is more accurately referred to as representative democracy. In the U.S. the Electoral College a slightly more complex way representative democracy is used to pick the president. The Electors become the once removed electors of the President. 

The problem starts with the absurdity of every person having an equal say in the outcome of an issue. Not everyone is qualified. The idea that every single person in a democracy is equally entitled to vote has no rational basis. The idea certainly is not supported by what is called the birthplace of democracy, Athens. In fact, ancient civilizations would find the idea of universal suffrage unfathomable.

Most tribes leave decisions to councils of men. The issues of war is the province of those who will be prosecuting the war. In Athens the same perspective was manifest regarding decisions about the public weal. Those who paid for the polity were the ones who voted on policy. This was to some degree or other, followed in many other nations including Britain and the U.S.. Voters were male landowners. Over time this more rational form of democracy was whittled away until it because the liberal absurdity in use today.

Liberals may claim male centered democracy or patriarchy is due to misogyny. Truth is not a major concern for liberal commentators. The rationale for patriarchy is more sensible than what misogyny as an explanatory principle conveys.

The primary consumer of public goods was, in ancient times, the primary voters. The vote was a demonstration of customer preference in a direct democracy. It was not so different from a group of persons buying a pizza voting on which pizza toppings to have with those persons chipping in being the ones permitted to choose a topping. The political vote was in this sense an extension of the market. The voter was the person who would be paying for the policies that would be put into place.

When the power of the nobles and gentrified landowner in Britain, gave way to capitalists and owners of commercial property the voting base was extended from nobles to landowners and to businessmen. The restriction of suffrage to the vote to males was founded on the vote being based on economic importance. Men were the property owners and the steward of the family assets and so were given the vote. 

Remember, there were no mail in ballots and for many periods, not even secret balloting. Voting could be and was a raucous occasion; an event which most woman would not have attended if invited.

This rationale was not defensible in an absolute or ethical sense. Woman also owned property and had a say in the disposition of assets. If not this was not justification for withholding t he suffrage. Possessing property does not make one productive or sensible. It was of course more rational to permit woman to own the equity they authored. This is in keeping with tradition. We own what we create as ordained by the author of the universe.

The argument voting ought not be based on merit or have any restriction attached, is of course an absurd assertion that is never actually enforced. Everything is regulated to some degree and there is no democracy anywhere that does not limit voting to defined categories regardless of how broad.

Perhaps before we say who ought to vote we learn what the purpose of the vote is. If all we vote for is a leader, who has the right to be involved in the process? Is universal suffrage defensible when all that is being done is assigning Power of Attorney to an acknowledged authority? Is the ability to suck in air and indicate a choice sufficient to be an elector? The voter is not just picking an extended care nurse. He or she is voting in someone who will be making policy for the nation. It is possible that given enough average persons, the best possible choice will emerge on average. Let’s face it, in most elections the voter has a 50/50 chance of getting it right. If electing the right person has any meaning in this context. It is not as if the candidate has unrestricted power once elected. There are limits to the power of all officials. This being said, it makes sense to make all politicians answerable to the electorate every few years. Though this tends to defeat the purpose of forcing restraint. When there are term limits the elected official knows in the last year he or she will not be held accountable. In this sense the moderating influence that facing the electorate is supposed to provide, is lost when the possibility of being elected is taken away.

It appears a solid rationale for democracy is missing. It is taken as axiomatic that people ought to have the power to vote. However, what does this mean and why is it taken to be an obvious truth? Even if we accept serious issues ought to be voted on what are the mechanics use? Is it a show of hands, secret ballots or do we vote in those who will vote on the issue? The power of the people is always curtailed. The more complicated the issue the less capable the people are in making a reasoned decision. The simpler the issue is made the less meaningful the vote. No matter how much theoretical power the people are said to have, the power always ends up at the top. Large numbers of persons cannot make meaningful choices. Democracy is good when voting on the toppings of a pizza, worse than useless when voting on complex issues such as legislation.

What would your position on democracy be if we adopted a more biblical perspective regarding government? If we believed we are to be obedient and restore the peace we have between God and us, what would be our response to a suggestion we ought to permit a majority of sinners choose which sinner would direct our lives for the next four years?

Did we see a time when the Jews voted in a leader? The Israelites were never a democracy. The judges were not chosen by lot but by God. So were its kings. Moses did not get elected by an Electoral College and Jesus never campaigned as the messiah apparent.

Perhaps we started off on the wrong foot. Maybe we wanted a solution to a problem we caused? Kings and autocrats of various types are useful for waging war but without them, war could not have been waged on the scale autocrats make possible. 

What is the purpose of democracy? Why do we think problems will be lessened if we engage everyone in an electoral process? 

Is the ability to wage war so important we need to vote in a person able to direct armies and war time economics? Do we need the state to provide social goods? War could be classed as a social good. Is the provision of social justice the purpose of the state? Does the state even have a purpose or is it something we think we need because it is what we are familiar with? What does it mean to take up our cross and follow Jesus? Is what Jesus designed for us something for governments to think about or is it just an issue that concerns citizens?

What we need to comprehend is that God never instituted democracy. There is a reason for this. The popular vote is essentially meaningless in and of itself. Without a good dose of tyranny democracy is a farce. In other words, there needs to be a mechanism for exploiting and oppressing the authors of equity for a vote to matter.

We can only collectively decide to spend someone else’s income if democracy is to be a worthwhile activity. If we all spend what we contributed, then democracy has been abandoned. This puts conservatives in an uncomfortable position regarding democracy. Anyone who claims to hate socialism yet supports democracy does not understand what they are saying. At minimum democratic votes installs a government. Governments do not make money and so are a drain on the community purse before they do anything. To do anything, to install a social agenda or enact legislation only compounds the problem. Once one has government one has socialism. The only question we get to ask is how much socialism we are going to support.

Elections are actions in which a group of persons vote to share out a pool of resources or vote in a group of officials who will take chare of a pool of resources and administrate them for the benefit of the group of the benefit of the majority, depending on the size and structure of the group.

An election does not and cannot produce anything but positions regarding the disposition of wealth. Democracy in its simplest form is a group of persons deciding by majority decision how to divide an existing pie.

There is no way this can be reconciled with the basic principles of conservatives. We must learn to see conservatism as the defender of our ancient and honorable traditions. Democracy is a liberal conception. It is not right wing; it is not part of the traditional method of organizing or allocating resources.

To understand tradition and how it works one has to understand truth. Think of tradition as the original truth form. Truth was given to man as tradition. The truth written in our hearts is a sense that there is an original, or traditional way of living. This is the Golden Age or the past conservatives want to preserve. Liberals are right, there never was a Golden Age and there is not a period in the past that ought to have been preserved. This factual by liberals is a consequence of their basic atheism. For atheists, if they cannot see, feel, hear or taste it, it does not exist. Historians can search back in time for the Golden Age. They will not find it. They can seek backwards for that wonderful period in history that ought to be protected and preserved. Liberals are right. It will not be found. What liberals fail to realize is that glorious age is not in front of us either.

The days of politics is over. Conservatives may choose to continue voting and engaging in political activity as outreach. Bear in mind elections always give the advantage to those willing to bribe freeloaders. You cannot win an election as a party or as a candidate unless you are willing to compromise your Christian heritage and conservative principles. Democracy is not part of our ancient traditions nor found in original truth. We know what is right and wrong because we are all heirs to what is true. The facts are clear, they need no commentary or elucidating footnotes. No one goes into politics feeling good about it, it is never more than people making the best of a bad situation. Its time to go primal. Peel off the veneer of liberalism in which we are all encased and get back to the basic self that is true to tradition. Traditional society is not individuals in a mob variously juxtaposed together in political jurisdictions of various shapes and sizes. This is not the building block of civil life.  

In other words, the truth will not be discovered by running from it or by building over it. We need to uncover it. We carry the truth with us. Tradition is not what we first discovered it is what we have had from the beginning.

Messians believe in the ancient truths and ways. These are integral to man meaning all persons. Ancients understand these truths have been corrupted and overlaid with greed and hypocrisy. They are poorly formulated and little understood. That these truths exist is proven that no one can formulate an alternative to them. In short, all but the ancient truths are lies and provably so.

It matters not one whit that ancient man hallowed kings whereas modern man worships democracy. Neither are the traditional mode of administrating society. The tradition is encapsulated in Scripture if no where else. All truth will be found in scripture if not spelled out at least alluded to.

We are without excuse.

No one truly believes another man is sacred while he is not. No one thinks a mob can outthink him. Just these two facts ought to be enough to demonstrate tradition is as strong today as at the beginning when truth was first passed down to us.  

Who has a dollar and gives this to someone else to spend without carefully questioning what purchase is made if the dollar is passed over at all? No one can inhabit our perspective. This is unique to us. Tradition confirms, establishes and protects this truth. Knowing this we give way to those who claim they have oracle insights and prophetic vision. In the old law false prophets were stoned. We have as a people laid aside all pretense of justice to permit false profits and wolves to live among us and lead us into depravity. We keep no accounts and forget there is a ledger that cannot be done away with.

Lets imagine a false prophet arising among us and claiming to be an oracle of truth. We appoint him to be a king over us. This king leads us into war. He takes from the weak to embellish his palaces and reward his consorts and sycophants. He is a demagogue overall. Has this man taken our sin upon himself?

Because we march behind him in his legions are we absolved of all culpability? Will we as servants never be called to account because of whom we choose to serve?

The Bible says the blind who follow the blind fall into the pit. None are so blind as those who choose not to see. Perhaps God does not believe those who claim innocence because of their blindness?

We are heirs to the truth because we are a party to the logic that defines existence. We cannot pretend democracy make sense when no one really believes in or trusts it. If you were a democrat without hypocrisy you would put everything to the vote. Individual choice would be discarded. Democracy is a sham, a scam, even a joke we all play on ourselves because we think the odds are we will come out ahead. Meaning, we think another group will pay at least part of our costs.

We know it is wrong for a person to steal what we have but we authorize the state to steal what others have, and we accede to them taking from us in the hope and expectation that we will get back more than we gave.  We think the state absolves us from being Good Samaritans, charity becomes an option rather than an obligation. We are playing games with reality and we cannot understand we must always lose these games.

We cannot compromise truth and win against the odds. God owns truth and He owns reality. There is no asset in existence than any human created, not individually and not collectively. We are not the Creator and no one has a claim on anything natural. In the traditions man is something of a guest, at best we are a servant. Who gave the state, the explorer, the entrepreneur the right to take from God what is His and claim it as His own?

Does calling a forest private property alter its substance? Can a legal title carve an indelible signature on a body of water or make the invisible lines drawn by a surveyor visible? Can the august body of a king or sanctified council of state legislature muster up enough majesty to give uncontested title to part of the natural beauty of the world, to one of its subjects? Surely we jest?

Who are we kidding? What kind of joke are we playing on our sanity as we cut and parcel out the air, water and sky to the highest bidder and the best fighter?

Why must God endure this comedy we call civil society? 

If there is no way to logically confirm we own this geography the possession is not traditionally sanctified. There is only one source of ownership and that is authorship. Gods Himself only claims what he has authored. He claims nothing beyond what His Word brought into being.

If Gods authorship defines His ownership who are we to claim more?

Authorship defines ownership. No man creates nature, but we add value. We are owners of the value but not the thing added value to.

All workers are worthy of their wages and we are all legitimately owed the value we create. This is provided as equity in the asset, that is, the value added to the asset through our labor. Herein is the source for the validation of The Labor Theory of value. This is tradition. It is what we all understand and the only idea that makes sense so far as legitimate pricing of goods and services is concerned. Of course, this is only valid in a traditional social structure, not in the abstract blasphemy of Babylon.

The Golden Rule also contains the traditional truth about justice. It is an injunction not a suggestion or jurisprudential barrier to ill-advised behaviour. We must do in a positive sense what we want others to do. We have to take the lead. We have to be as Jesus. Jesus never complained others were not doing what he would like them to do, he did what he would have others do. This is why we need to follow him, not show him what good behaviour looks like.

We do not get to define justice and morality for God. Jesus is our tradition writ large. If we were following truth we would be as Jesus. Jesus did not vote nor did he run for election. All he did was be Jesus. We must be like Jesus and be true to our traditional self; the one that is heir to the truth.