Change My Definition and You Change My Values

Words are beautiful things, as Proverbs 25:11 says: “A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.” Psalms says words are also powerful: products of the tongue that “devise mischief" as a “sharp sword.”
 

Words and their meanings can change, affecting our values and politics. Those who are unethical or unwitting sometimes purposefully change definitions to sway our beliefs. Some think, for instance, that our Constitution should “evolve,” and they use our language to assist in the evolution. Words such as “equality,” “discrimination” and “democracy” are quietly and purposefully redefined over time. Few realize that these redefinitions sometimes change our basic beliefs.
For example, America is often called a democracy, which we are not. A democracy is like a locomotive running full steam toward disaster. America is a constitutional republic — a republic because we elect representatives to create laws, and constitutional because we have a written, ratified constitution. Some, like Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”, misapply the term democracy. The Founders did not. Benjamin Franklin said the government he helped create was a republic, “... if you can keep it.” A democracy — all citizens voting on every law — is unwieldy, unwise and tiresome to maintain. It is prone to impulse and mob rule, and susceptible to being “bought” by politicians.
When leaders and the people believe they are a democracy, they act like one. They sidestep elected representatives, neglect the republic’s duties in order to focus on rights, and sell their freedoms for “goodies.” The locomotive of democracy always runs over the historical cliff.
Another distortion in our language deals with the word “discrimination.” The word once meant to divide, discern or distinguish. (Webster’s 1942 Collegiate Dictionary, 5th edition). Today it means that some beliefs and business practices that are based on religious or personal ethics are hateful. The age-old admonition of philosophers, preachers and prophets to apply our personal standards to everyday living has been razed. Some of those actions now qualify as discrimination and are, increasingly, violations of the law.
The word “equality” has also been redefined. Nowhere is this more obvious than the transformation of equality in the marriage arena. Equality is referenced in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." This is one of America’s core values.
The equality referenced in 1776 applied to all citizens of the existing 13 colonies that participated in the declaration. Today the term is applied selectively; changed by narrowing its scope dramatically. Equality does not apply to the children who will be denied either a father or a mother under redefined marriage, or to those in the culture whose definitions of gender will be erased and whose standards will be criminalized. “Equality” is available only to a favored few. Government, whose responsibility it has previously been to prevent injustice, now enforces redefined equality to become the agent of injustice.
The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose political ideas encouraged the bloodbath of the French Revolution, declared that the concept of rights required that all men be equal in every way. John Adams wrote from France about Rousseau’s philosophy: “That all men are born to equal (inalienable) rights is true. ... But to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life, is as gross a fraud ... as ever was practiced.” The equality of the Constitution refers to the equality of all generations as they stand before God, before the law and in the courts, and in the justice received.
Another misuse of vocabulary is explained by author Anthony Daniel in his address “The Worldview that Makes the Underclass” at Hillsdale College in May 2014. He explains the growing welfare class as well as vocabulary changes that have altered our values. He says, “A small change in locution (manner of speech) illustrates a change in the character and conceptions of a people. ... those who received state (welfare) benefits (in the past) would say, ‘I receive my check on Friday.’ Now people who receive such benefits say, ‘I get paid on Friday,’ ... implying that they are being paid to continue to exist; existence itself being their work.” As a result of this changed perception, people increasingly feel entitled to receive welfare and the welfare state grows.
There are hundreds of examples of changed vocabulary that affect our values and perceptions. We refer to worthless pieces of paper as “money” — that which used to have merit because it could be exchanged for something of worth. Our paper money is no longer backed by anything of intrinsic value nor can it be exchanged; it is sustained only by our perception of its worth. We refer to many medical procedures, such as screenings for diseases, as “disease prevention”, when, in fact, the procedures do nothing to prevent disease. That would require lifestyle choices that encourage health. The tests are, instead, early detection procedures, not preventive procedures. The difference is substantial. While both have value, defining them accurately would help recipients make better choices.
Words and the concepts they represent form the foundation of our lives. How can anyone be sure of what he believes when the words that describe his beliefs shift like sand beneath his feet? We need clarity, not confusion, for our values and our words.

Pamela's new Ebook, "Promises of the Constitution:"    Go to:

http://smile.amazon.com/Promises-Constitution-Yesterday-Today-Tomorrow-ebook/dp/B00LEWCS4E/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1410824095&sr=1-1&keywords=promises+of+the+constitution 

A Good Summer Read: Democracy in America .

I’ve been rereading Democracy in America by Alexis de Toqueville, published in 1825. It’s an eye opener—you would think something that ancient would be outdated. It isn’t. His mind fascinates me—he saw so many things about America and Americans that I would never think of. I feel like I’ve been dipped in “smarts” every time I read.

The Democracy part of the title has always confused me. I think we use the word differently today than they did in the early 1800s. Today we view democracy, one of the three main forms of government, as dangerous--politicians can “buy” the public. (The other two are a monarchy—rule by one, and an oligarchy—rule by a few--always the wealthy and important. None of the three give the best deal to ordinary people.)

As de Toqueville used the term democracy, it meant majority self-rule. The two definitions aren’t the same.

Majority self-rule means we govern ourselves according to what the majority wants. This can be done in different ways, one of which is to elect representatives to act for us, which is the American way. The elected level between us and government gives us safety and prevents mischief. If the representatives remain honest and true to their task, we really get sound government out of this arrangement.

A pure democracy also meets the self-rule by majority criteria. Under a pure democracy, however, everyone must speak. That never works. Imagine the disaster if every single citizen had to vote on every law, be at every city council meeting, traffic court, and department meeting. That wouldn’t last for long.

Ancient Greece tried pure democracy and it survived for only 60 years or so--their Golden Age under Pericles the Great. Those who had to work for a living quit showing up for the vote. After awhile only the wealthy, who had others to do their work, attended. They drafted laws to get what they wanted and then bought off the people to make it happen. Democracy tumbled, as a pure democracy always does.

The Founders worked all three major types of government into our system: a president for the monarchy, a Senate for the oligarchy, and the House of Representatives for all the people. It  worked well. Still, everything was based on the majority. Without that, a minority rules—a few, who get what they want, and we would not be equal.

We’ve messed it up pretty badly. Part of the reason is that we have redefined equality. We say that everyone deserves the same everything. It’s impossible.

The only fair equality is that we can keep what we earn or what is given to us. We are equal before the law, in the courts, and in God-given rights. Government can’t make everything equal. Equality means that you get according to what you do and are given.

***

A last word about Alexis de Toqueville: he was young, French, and a nobleman’s son who came to America in 1823 with a friend and left 9 months later. He was smart and paid attention. After he got home he spent years writing about what he learned in America, putting the information into two books.

It’s amazing how clearly de Toqueville caught our national personality. It can be confusing, however, until you understand about democracy and the equality part.

If you want a great summer read, try the abridged version—try the original only if you have time on your hands! I can never read more than a few pages at a time because I have to stop and put the pieces together with what I already know. Democracy in America is amazing! Try it!

Checklist of Tools for Freedom

I’ve been rereading Alexis de Toqueville’s Democracy in America. It’s as powerful the second time as it was the first. I can only read a few pages at a time—the information is so powerful that I have to think a good bit on what I read. It’s like constitution vitamins on steroids!

Alexis de Tocqueville

		Democracy in America
Born	29 July 1805 Paris, France
Died	16 April 1859 (aged 53) Cannes, France
Era	19th-century philosophy
Region	Western philosophy
Religion	Roman Catholicism
School	Liberalism
Main interests	History, Political philosophy

Richard Heffner, in his introduction to the work, identifies tools that free men can create to strengthen their “ancient freedoms”. His list is sobering. We can turn it into a check list.

 First, we need an independent press—a voice to appeal to the whole nation. Ours isn’t telling us the truth and twists the facts to favor the left. We come close to flunking this one, with only a few exceptions.

Second, we need decentralization to diminish authority—or divide it, as the founders stated it.  Not doing too well on this one, either. The federal government has become obese.

Third, we need local self-government. We still have some of that. We need to strengthen it and get involved.

Fourth, we need a sense of responsibility and self-importance—the good kind, that keeps us from drifting into the faceless crowd of apathy. We have a lot of apathy, but more people are waking up. I’m hopeful.

Fifth, we need a forthright legal profession and judiciary to uphold our other tools. We flunk that one hard, although there are honest men left in the judiciary.

Sixth, we need groups of citizens to guard always our freedoms and rights; who understand that their freedoms mean nothing if all of us don’t have those freedoms. I’m aware of many of those groups. We need to connect and unify our message. There are enough of us, but we are isolated and duplicating each other.

We can create these tools. There is a natural tendency to drift toward tyranny, but we don’t have to submit to that drift. We can fight, we can hold the line, we can regain ground we lost. We have lots of freedoms still left—enough to set us to work.

Let’s get on with it! Pick an area and lend your efforts. Many hands make light work………..  Pam

You and Government Control

Would you like to take a trip across the vast Nevada desert at a forced 55 mph? Trust me, you wouldn’t.

In the late 1970s, President Jimmy Carter imposed a 55 mph federal speed law across the country in the wake of rising oil prices. Our family made a trip from California to Utah across Nevada’s vast stretches of uninhabited terrain during this speed limit freeze. I remember, as my husband and children slept, the frustration of crawling at 55 mph on a flawless road in perfect weather when I could see not a single car on the divided freeway in either direction for miles ahead.

Nevada did not need a 55 mph speed limit, and I did not need a heavy-handed government to set speed laws. (As a side note, the anticipated savings that drove this law were a disappointment, promised safety benefits were questionable, and states largely ignored enforcement of a law they considered out of line.) This was government interference with individual and state rights. The right of states to set their own laws takes on new meaning when you consider Nevada’s desert.

When Alexis de Toqueville visited America in the early 1830s, he studied the American personality. What made America “tick”? How could her success, her strength, her national character be explained? He returned to Europe to write the two volume work, Democracy in America, a centuries old best seller. While his writing is Political Thought 501 and requires a ready dictionary, it is instructive reading.

One of his thought-provoking ideas is this: individuals are harder to control if they are not all alike. He says, “when the individual disappears into the throng, and is easily lost in the midst of a common obscurity…who shall say at what point the exigencies (requirements) of power and the servility (slavery) of weakness will stop?” In modern language: make men alike and it is easier to control them and take their rights away.

Toqueville makes the same point about states. While he was talking about the provinces of European countries, is ideas are near prophetic today. “When the…(states) formed so many different nations in the midst of their common country, each of them had a will of its own, which was opposed to the general spirit of subjection”. He continues, “now…having lost their immunities, their customs, their prejudices, their traditions…(they) have become accustomed to obey the same laws, (and) it is not more difficult to oppress them all together than it was formerly to oppress one of them separately.” His point: states that lose their individuality are also easier to control.

The Founders intended that states be different, unique, independent—sovereign entities. The original Constitution made that a priority to each state: emphasize individual customs and strengths, deal with your own unique challenges, create your own laws. Rhode Island and Arizona should not have the same policies and priorities. Each state was to experiment and find solutions to its problems and share with the others, who would copy, adapt, or ignore the innovations. Their union, which bound them firmly but loosely, benefitted them all. Cooperation and overall harmony were the goal. There were rules: each must remain democratic republic and would share a common mail system, national navy, and universal laws about such things as bankruptcy, patents, and extradition laws. Beyond those unifying factors, each state was unique and independent.

Logically, then, a federal government bent on control, rather than on rights and freedom, would impose federal standards on everything from education to commerce to agriculture to transportation. As a nation, in fact, we are being overwhelmed with government control. It makes sense that people who want freedom would oppose these government controls and work to change these policies. This begins with telling your elected representatives that you want less control: more individual freedoms and state rights. Stay on them and insist they comply. Study the issues and put your vote on the side of individual rights and less government control. That’s a start.