The Pete Quiñones Show - Pete Reads John C. Calhoun's 'Disquisition on Government' Part 2

Episode Date: March 22, 2024

56 MinutesIn this reading and commentary Pete continues reading John C. Calhoun's celebrated "Disquisition on Government." John Caldwell Calhoun was an American statesman and political theorist who served as the seventh vice president of the United States from 1825 to 1832.VIP Summit 3-Truth To Freedom - Autonomy w/ Richard GroveSupport Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive, by design. They move you, even before you drive. The new Cooper plugin hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon, and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Cooper.

Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen. Financial Services, Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Pst, did you know?

Those Black Friday deals everyone's talking about? They're right here at Beacon South Quarter. That designer's sofa you've been wanting? It's in Seoul, Boe Concept and Rocheburoix. The Dream Kitchen? Check out at Cube Kitchens. Beacon South Quarter Dublin, where the smart shoppers go. Two hours free parking, just off the M50, at 13. It's a Black Friday secret. Keep it to yourself.

Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favorite Liddle items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Liddle, more to value. the show and get the episodes early and ad-free. Head on over to freemamandbeonthewall.com forward slash support. There's a few ways you can support me there. One, there's a direct link to my website. Two, there's subscribe star. Three, there's Patreon. Four, there's substack. And now I've

introduced Gumroad, because I know that a lot of our guys are on Gumroad and they are against censorship. So if you head over to Gumroad and you subscribe through there, you'll get the episodes early and ad-free, and you'll get an invite into the telegram group. So I really appreciate all the support everyone's giving me, and I hope to expand the show even more than it already has. Thank you so much. I want to welcome everyone back to part two of John C. Calhoun's disposition on government. We ended yesterday talking about how he saw suffrage as the one thing. that could push back tyranny of government.

And then as he's explained with everything that he sees as a necessity for government, he starts talking about the problems with suffrage, the problems with universal suffrage, the problems with suffrage in general. And we're going to continue talking a little bit about that. And I hope you stick around for this one, because, like I said, this whole thing is great. And people have a tendency to drop out after the first episode. And I don't know why that is.

Once I listen to something, I mean, I don't know. But yeah, so let's check this out here. All right. Picking up where we left off from yesterday. As then, the right of suffrage without some other provision cannot counteract this tendency of government. The next question for consideration is, what is that other provision? This demands the most serious consideration.

for of all the questions embraced in the science of government, it involves a principle the most important and the least understood, and when understood, the most difficult of application in practice. It is, indeed, emphatically, that principle which makes the Constitution in its strict and limited sense. From what has been said, it is manifest that this provision must be of a character calculated to prevent any one interest or combination, of interests from using the powers of government to aggrandize itself at the expense of the others. Here lies to evil, and just in proportion as it shall prevent or fail to prevent it, in the same degree it will affect or fail to affect the end intended to be accomplished. There is but one certain mode in which this result can be secured, and that is, by the adoption of some restriction or limitation, which shall be so effectually,

which shall so effectually prevent any one interest or combination of interests from obtaining the exclusive control of the government as to render hopeless all attempts directed to that end. There is, again, but one mode in which this can be affected, and that is, by taking the sense of each interest or portion of the community, which may be unequally and injuriously affected by the action of the government separately through its own majority or in some other way by which its voice may be fairly expressed and to require the consent of each interest either to put or to keep the government in action.

This too can be applied only in one way, and that is by such an organism of the government, and if necessary for the purpose of the community also, as will by dividing and distributing the powers of government give to each division or interest through its appropriate organ, either a concurrent voice in making and executing laws, or a veto on their execution. It is only by such an organism that the assent of each can be made necessary to put the government in motion, or the power made effectual to arrest its action when put in motion,

and it is only by the one or the other that the different interests orders, classes, or portions into which the community may be, divided, can be protected, and all conflict and struggle between them prevented, by rendering it impossible to put or to keep it in action without the concurrent consent of all. Such an organism as this, combined with the right of suffrage, constitutes, in fact, the elements of constitutional government. The one, by rendering those who make and execute the laws responsible to those on whom they operate, prevents the rulers from oppressing the ruled and the other by making it impossible for any one interest or combination of interest or

class or order or portion of the community to obtain exclusive control prevents any one of them from oppressing the other. It is clear that oppression and abuse of power must come, if at all, from the one or the other quarter. From no other can they come. It follows that the two, suffrage and proper organism combined are sufficient to counteract the tendency of government to oppression and abuse of power and to restrict to it the fulfillment of the great ends for which it is ordained. I'm going. In coming to this conclusion, I have assumed the organism to be perfect and the different

interests, portions, or classes of the community to be sufficiently enlightened to understand and its character and object and to exercise with due diligence, the right of suffrage. To the extent that either may be defective to the same extent the government would fall short of fulfilling its ends, but this does not impeach the truth of the principles on which it rests. Very theory cell here. In reducing them to proper form, in applying them to practical uses, all elementary principles are liable to difficulties, but they are not, on this account, the less true or valuable. Where the organism is perfect, every interest will be truly and fully represented,

and of course the whole community must be so. It may be difficult or even impossible to make a perfect organism, but although this be true, yet even when, instead of the sense of each and of all, it takes that of a few great and prominent interests only, it would still in a great measure, if not altogether, fulfill the end intended by a constitution. For in such case, it would require so large a portion of the community compared with a whole

to concur or acquiesce in the action of the government that the number to be plundered would be too few and the number to be aggrandized too many to afford adequate motives to oppression and the abuse of its powers. Indeed, however, imperfect the organism, it must have more or less effect in diminishing such tendency. And what's the problem with that? well, conspiracy. People coming together, people of like interests coming together, and as he has talked about previously, getting their way, taking over, becoming the majority.

And how do they keep their power? They have to keep being the majority, and they have to squash the minority. And his point is, well, the minority can become the majority. But when you really look, at this, we're not talking about like groups of people from the community, you know, just every, people like you and me. What we're talking about is elites that do this. It's the elites who make constitutional government impossible. Because once you have elites and once you have their

money, and once you have people who are self-interested, who are in power and are taking that money, well, very quickly, this check-on powers starts to melt away. So, take a sip. It may be readily inferred from what has been stated that the effect of organism is neither to supersede nor diminish the importance of the right of suffrage, but to aid and perfect it. The object of the latter is to collect the sense of the community. The more fully and perfectly it accomplishes this, the more fully and perfectly it fulfills its ends. But the most it can do of itself is to collect the sense of the greater number, that is, of the stronger interests or combination of interests, and to assume this to be the sense of the community.

It is only when aided by a proper organism that it can collect the sense of the entire community, of each and all its interests, of each through its appropriate organ, and of the whole, through all of them united. This would truly be the sense of the entire community, for whatever diversity each interest might have within itself, as all would have the same interest in reference to the action of the government, the individuals composing each would be fully and truly represented by its own majority or appropriate organ regarded in reference to the other interests. In brief, every individual of every interest might trust with confidence,

its majority or appropriate organ against that of every other interests. It results, from what has been said, that there are two different modes in which the sense of the community may be taken. One simply by the right of suffrage, unaided, the other by the right through a proper organism. Each collects the sense of the majority, but one regards numbers only and considers the community as a unit having but one common interest throughout and collects the sense of the greater number of the whole as that of the community. The other, on the contrary, regards interests as well as numbers, considering the community as made up of different and conflicting interests as far as the action of the government is concerned and takes the sense of each

through its majority or appropriate organ and the united sense of all as the sense of the entire community. The former of these, I shall call them a numerical, an absolute majority, and the latter, the concurrent or constitutional majority. I call it the constitutional majority because it is an essential element in every constitutional government, be its form what it may. So great is the difference, politically speaking, between the two majorities that they cannot be co-founded without leading to great and fatal errors, and yet the distinction between them has been so entirely overlooked that when the term majority is used in political discussions, it is applied exclusively. It is applied exclusively to designate the numerical, as if there were no other. Until this distinction is

recognized and better understood, there will continue to be great liability to error in properly constructing constitutional governments, especially the popular form, and of preserving them when properly constructed. Until then, the latter will have a strong tendency to slide, first into government of the numerical majority, and finally into absolute government of some other form. To show that such must be the case, and at the same time to mark more strongly the difference between the two, in order to guard against the danger of overlooking it, I propose to consider the subject more at length. This is getting good. The first and leading error, which naturally arises from overlooking the distinction referred to, is to confound the numerical majority with the people.

people, and this is so completely as to regard them as identical. This is a consequence that necessarily results from considering the numerical as the only majority. All admit that a popular government or democracy is the government of the people, for the terms imply this. A perfect government of the kind would be one which would embrace the consent of every citizen or member of the community, but as this is impracticable, in the opinion of those who regard the numerical as the only a majority and who can perceive no other way by which the sense of the people can be taken, they are compelled to adopt this as the only true basis of popular government in contradistinction to governments of the aristocratic or monarchical form.

Being thus constrained, they are, in the next place, forced to regard the numerical majority as, in effect, the entire people, that is, the greater part of the whole, and the government of the greater part as the government of the whole. It is thus the two come to be confounded and a part made identical with the whole. And it is thus also that all the rights, powers, and immunities of the whole people come to be attributed to the numerical majority, and among others, the supreme sovereign authority of establishing and abolishing governments at pleasure. This radical error, the consequence of confounding the two, and of regarding the numeric, as the only majority has contributed more than any other cause to prevent the formation of

popular constitutional governments and to destroy them even when they have been formed. It leads to the conclusion that in their formation and establishment, nothing more is necessary than the right of suffrage and the allotment to each division of the community a representation in the government in proportion to numbers. If the numerical majority were really the people, and if, to take its sense truly, or to take the sense of the people truly, a government so constituted would be a true and perfect model of a popular constitutional government and every departure from it would detract from its excellence. But as such is not the case, as a numerical majority, instead of being the people, is only a portion of them. Such a government, instead of being a true and perfect model of the people's government, that is, a people self-governed, is but the people. the government of a part over a part, the major over the minor portion. But this misconception of the true elements of constitutional government does not stop here. It leads to other equally false and fatal in reference to the best means of preserving and perpetuating them when,

for some fortunate combination of circumstances, they are correctly formed. For they who fall into these errors regard the restrictions which organisms impose on the will of the numerical majority as restrictions on the will of the people and therefore as not only useless but wrongful and mischievous. And hence they endeavor to destroy organism under the delusive hope of making government more democratic. Such are some of the consequences of confounding the two and of regarding the numerical as the only majority. And in this may find, and in this may be found the reason why so few popular governments have been properly constructed, and why, of these few, so small a number have proved durable. Such must continue to be the result, so long as these errors continue to be

prevalent. There is another error of a kindred character, whose influence contributes much to the same results. I prefer to the prevalent opinion that a written constitution containing suitable restrictions on the powers of government is sufficient of itself without the aid of any organism, except such as is necessary to separate several departments and render them independent of each other, to counteract the tendency of the numerical majority to oppression and the abuse of power. You can see that Calhoun is not a fan of democracy at all. He is not a fan of 50.1 rule over the other. So I'm assumed that everyone who's been listening to this knows basically what he saw, what this organism is.

A written constitution has many and considerable advantages, but it is a great mistake to suppose that the mere insertion of provisions to restrict and limit the powers of the government without investing those whose protection they are inserted with the means of enforcing their observance will be sufficient to prevent the major and dominant party from abusing its powers. Being the party in possession of the government, they will from the same, same constitution of man, which makes government necessary to protect society, be in favor of the powers granted by the Constitution, and opposed to the restrictions intended to limit them. As the major and dominant party, they will have no need of these restrictions for their protection.

The ballot box of itself would be ample protection to them, needing no other they would come in time to regard these limitations as unnecessary and improper restraints and endeavor. to elude them with a view of increasing their power and influence. You getting it? There's so much rugby on Sports Extra from Sky. They've asked me to read the whole lad at the same speed I usually use for the legal bit at the end. Here goes.

This winter sports extra is jam-packed with rugby. For the first time we've got every Champions Cup match exclusively live, plus action from the URC, the Challenge Cup, and much more. Thus the U.S.C and all the best European rugby all in the same place. Get more exclusively live tournaments than ever before on Sports Extra. Jam-pack with rugby. Phew, that is a lot of rugby. Sports Extra on Sky for 15 euro a month for 12 months.

Search Sports Extra. New Sports Extra customers only. Standard Pressing applies after 12 months for the terms apply. Don't let foot pain or discomfort hold you back. At foot Solutions, we specialize in high-quality supportive footwear. And use the latest scanning technology to custom-make orthotics. Designed for your unique feet. If you want to free your feet in joints from pain,

improve balance or correct alignment, book a free foot assessment at footsolutions.i or pop-in store to. Today. Foot Solutions, the first step towards pain-free feet. On the many days of Christmas, the Guinness Storehouse brings to thee, a visit filled with festivity. Experience the story of Ireland's most iconic beer in a stunning Christmas setting at the Guinness Storehouse. Enjoy seven floors of interactive exhibitions and finish your visit with breathtaking views of Dublin City from the home of Guinness. Live entertainment, great memories and the Gravity Burr. My goodness, it's Christmas at the Guinness Storehouse.

Book now at ginnastorehouse.com. Get the facts. Be drinkaware. Visit drinkaware.org. The minor or weaker party, on the contrary, would take the opposite direction and regard them as essential to their protection against the dominant party. They'd be waving constitution, pocket-sized constitutions everywhere. Be saying, what about my rights? Haven't you read the constitution? What does the party in power think?

Well, if it's the Republicans, they're like, yeah, we, we care about your rights. Go ahead. Start chopping body parts off of your kids. Sure, that's your right. They're four years old. It's your child. Do what you want. But what about?

And hence, they would endeavor to defend and enlarge the restrictions and to limit and contract the powers. But where there are no means by which they could compel the major party to observe the restrictions, The only resort left would be a strict construction of the Constitution. That is, a construction which would confine these powers to the narrowest limits, which the meaning of the words used in the grant would admit. To this, the major party would oppose a liberal construction, one would, yeah, oppose a liberal construction, one which would give to the words of the grant the broadest meaning of which they were susceptible. It would then be construction against construction, the one to contract, and the other to enlarge the parties

of the governments of the utmost. But of what possible avail could the strict construction of the minor party be against the liberal interpretation of the major, when the one would have all the powers of the government to carry its construction into effect, and the other be deprived of all means of enforcing its construction. In a contest so unequal, the result would not be, would not be doubtful. The party in favor of the restrictions would be overpowered. At first, they might command some respect and do something to state the march of encroachment, but they would, in the progress of the contest, be regarded as mere abstractionists, and indeed, deservedly, if they should indulge the folly of supposing that the party in possession of the ballot box and the

physical force of the country could be successfully resisted by an appeal to reason truth, justice, or the obligations imposed by the Constitution. For when these of themselves shall exert sufficient influence to stay the hand of power, then government will no longer be, will be no longer necessary to protect society, nor constitutions needed to prevent government from abusing its powers. Wow, that sounds familiar, right? Like, if you have a society that already doesn't steal, stuff, it doesn't hurt people and doesn't take their stuff, do you really need a constitution?

Now, you want a society where as soon as you start writing stuff down, you're pretty much screwed because, as I say, lawyer can step in and make it mean anything, especially if you're not the party in power anymore. The end of the contest would be the subversion of the constitution, either by the undermining process of construction where its meaning would admit of possible doubt, or by substituting in practice what is called party usage in place of its provisions. Or, finally, when no other contrivance would subserve the purpose by openly and boldly setting them aside. By the one or the other, the restrictions would ultimately be annulled, and the government be converted into one of unlimited powers.

Have we seen that? Nor would the division of government into separate or, and as in regards, as it regards each other independent departments prevent this result. Such a division may do much to facilitate its operations and to secure its administration, greater caution, and deliberation, but as each and all the departments, and of course, the entire government would be under the control of the numerical majority. It is too clear to require explanation that a mere distribution, of its powers among its agents or representatives could do little or nothing to counteract its tendency to oppression and abuse of power.

To affect this, it would be necessary to go one step further and make the several departments the organs of the distinct interests of portions of the community and to clothe each with a negative on the others. But the effect of this would be to change the government from numerical into the concurrent majority. Having now explained the reasons why it is so difficult to form and preserve popular constitutional government, so long as the distinction between the two majorities is overlooked, and the opinion prevails that a written constitution with suitable restrictions and a proper division of its powers is sufficient to counteract the tendency of the numerical majority to the abuse of its power, I shall next proceed to explain more fully while the concurrent majority is an indispensable element informing constitutional governments and why the numerical majority of itself must, in all cases,

make governments absolute. You think he's going to talk himself out of concurrent majority? The necessary consequence of taking the sense of the community by the concurrent majority is, as has been explained, to give to each interest or portion of the community a negative on the others. It is this mutual negative among its various conflicting interests which invests each with the power of protecting itself and places the rights and safety of each where only they can be securely placed under its own guardianship. Without this, there can be no systematic, peaceful, or effective resistance to the natural tendency of each to come into conflict with the others, and without this, there can be no constitution. It is this negative power, the power of preventing or arresting the action of the government, be it called by what term it may, veto, interposition, nullification, check, or balance of power, what, in fact, forms the Constitution.

They are all but different names for the negative power. In all its forms and under all its names, it results from the concurrent majority. Without this, there can be no negative and without a negative, no constitution. The assertion is true in reference to all constitutional governments be there forms what they may. It is, indeed, the negative power which makes the constitution and the positive which makes the government. The one is the power of acting. The other is the power of preventing or arresting action. The two combined make constitutional governments.

Now, where's the problem with this? Basically, what he's talking about, he's talking about federalism, and he's talking about what we saw some governors do during COVID, you know, just basically saying this isn't constitutional. We're not going to do it. Well, what's the problem with that in the modern age, in the way things are set up now? I think the main problem is the fact that so many states and so many localities

take federal money that they become reliance upon it, And now they can't stand up and say no. There's so much graft. There's so much, there's so many contracts. There's so, all of these things. If the states just concentrated on creating their own economies, their own, to the point where they could secede and they could survive, then you can have something like this.

But people are people in special interests, which is why you need somebody to step up and say no. And it's got to be one person. I know I keep saying that, but as he argues for this and then argues against it, and you see that this is the government that was started in this country, and you see how in this document, how we got to where we are, there has to be a better alternative. What is the alternative?

maybe I'll read that next, what I think the alternative should be. I don't know. But as there can be no constitution without the negative power and no negative power without the concurrent majority, it follows, necessarily, that where the numerical majority has the sole control of the government, there can be no constitution, as constitution implies limitation or restriction, and, of course, is inconsistent with the idea of sole or exclusive power. And hence the numerical, unmixed with the concurrent, majority necessarily forms, in all cases, absolute government. It is, indeed, the single or one

power, which excludes the negative and constitutes absolute government, and not the number in whom the power is vested. The numerical majority is as truly a single power and excludes the negative as completely as the absolute government of one or of the few. The former is as much the absolute government of the democratic or popular form as the latter of the monarchical or aristocratical form. It has, accordingly in common with them, the same tendency to oppression and abuse of power. Like I said, I think I said last time, he's basically crapping all over monarchy and aristocracy here. And I'd like to see if he could come forward to where we are now.

and I mean he's a man of his time he wasn't alive during the Constitution during the revolution but he was born shortly after he was brought up in the early 1800s There's so much rugby on sports extra from Sky They've asked me to read the whole lad at the same speed I usually use for the legal bit at the end Here goes

This winter sports extra is jam-packed with rugby For the first time we've got every Champions Cup match exclusively live Plus action from the URC, the Challenge Cup And much more That's the URC and all the best European rugby all on the same place Get more exclusively live tournaments than ever before on Sports Extra. Jampacked with rugby. Phew, that is a lot of rugby.

Get Sports Extra on Sky for 15 euro a month for 12 months. Search Sports Extra. New Sports Extra customers only. Standard Pressing applies after 12 months for the terms apply. Don't let foot pain or discomfort hold you back. At foot solutions, we specialize in high quality supportive footwear. And use the latest scanning technology to custom-make orthotics, designed for your unique feet.

If you want to free your feet in joints from pain, improve balance or correct alignment, book a free foot assessment at footsolutions.com or pop-in store today. Food Solutions, the first step towards pain-free feet. It's still fresh in everyone's mind. You have the War of 1812, which, I mean, shows exactly, you know, they burned the White, the Brits came and burned the White House down. So he has this aversion to monarchy and aristocracy, one person being in charge. Don't have to call him king, you can call him CEO, you can call him whatever. But you'd have to wonder what he would think now. Constitutional governments of whatever form are indeed much more similar to each other

in their structure and character than they are respectively to the absolute governments, even of their own class. All constitutional governments or whatever class they may be. be take the sense of the community by its parts, each through its appropriate organ, and regard the sense of all its parts as the sense of the whole. They all rest on the right of suffrage and the responsibility of rulers directly or indirectly. On the contrary, all absolute governments of whatever form concentrate power in one uncontrolled and irresponsible individual or body whose will is regarded as the sense of the community. You see you could see

in his language right there, that he, by calling it uncontrolled and irresponsible, an uncontrolled irresponsible, uh, or an irresponsible individual or body, you can see what his presupposition is. So, and hence the great and broad distinction between governments is,

not that of the one, the few, or the many, but of the constitutional and the absolute. So there's no other, there's nothing else. else? Really? Okay. From this, there results another distinction, which,

although secondary in its character, very strongly marks the difference between these forms of government. I refer to their respective conservative principle. That is, the principle by which they are upheld and preserved. This principle in constitutional governments is compromise, and in absolute

government, is force, as we'll be next explained. was that Thomas Sol said is only compromise is no such thing no such thing is perfect as only compromised I can't remember the exact term but yeah I mean you're not

if you're going to have a government like this it's going to be founded on compromise unless you have an autarky or what he calls an absolute government which he calls force I mean as a constitutional government Do you think we have a constitutional government that prides itself on compromise? It has been already shown that the same constitution of man, which leads those who govern to oppress the governed, if not prevented, will, with equal force and certainty, lead the latter to resist oppression when possessed of the means of doing so peaceably and successfully.

But absolute governments, of all forms, exclude all other means of resistance to their authority, than that of force. And, of course, leave no alternative to the governed, but to acquiesce an oppression, however great it may be, or to resort to force to put down the government. I mean, I can immediately think of three kings. I mean, talking about big kingdoms, where he's just, well, he's basically going to the worst possible.

And I think if you read Hapa's Democracy of the God that failed, you could see that it was not in most king's interest to be this heavy-handed or to even come close to the kind of thing he's talking about. It's just, yeah, he's a man of his time. That's all I can say. But the dread of such a resort must necessarily lead the government to prepare to meet force in order to protect itself, and hence, of necessity, force becomes the conservative principle of all such governments. On the contrary, the government of the concurrent majority, where the

organism is perfect, excludes the possibility of oppression by giving to each interest or portion or order, where there are established classes, the means of protecting itself by its negative against all measures calculated to advance the peculiar interests of others at its expense. Its effect, then, is to cause the different interests, portions, or orders, as the case may be, to desist from attempting to adopt any measure calculated to promote the prosperity of one or more by sacrificing that of others, and thus to force them to unite in such measures only as would promote the prosperity of all as the only means to prevent the suspension of the action of the government, and thereby to avoid. void anarchy, the greatest of all evils. It is by means of such authorized and effectual resistance that oppression is prevented and the necessity of resorting to force superseded in governments of the concurrent majority, and hence compromise instead of force becomes their conservative principle. It would perhaps be more strictly correct to trace the conservative principle of constitutional

governments to the necessity which compels the different interests or portions or orders to compromise as the only way to promote their respective prosperity and to avoid anarchy rather than to compromise itself. No necessity can be more urgent and imperious than that of avoiding anarchy. It is the same as that which makes government indispensable to preserve society and is not less imperative than that which compels obedience to superior force. Trace to this source, the voice of a people, uttered under the necessity of avoiding the greatest of calamities through the organs of a government so constructed as to suppress the expression of all partial and selfish interests and to give a full and faithful utterance to the sense

of the whole community in reference to its common welfare may, without impiety, be called the voice of God. to call any other so would be impious. In stating that forces the conservative principle of absolute and compromise of constitutional governments, I have assumed both to be perfect in their kind, but not without bearing in mind that few or none, in fact, have ever been so absolute as not to be under some restraint and none so perfectly organized as to represent fully and perfectly the voice of the whole community. and not even close, I would assume, in most cases, of polities above a very small size where pretty much everyone might be related, and then you still might have some problems there. Such being the case, all must in practice, depart more or less from the principles by which they are respectively upheld and preserved, and depend more or less for support on force or compromise as the absolute or the constitutional form predominates in their resolutely.

respective organizations. Nor in stating that absolute governments exclude all other means of resistance to its authority than that of force have I overlooked the case of governments of the numerical majority which form apparently an exception. It is true that, in such governments, the minor and subject party for the time have the right to oppose and resist the major and dominant party for the time through the ballot box and may turn them out and take their place if they can obtain a majority of votes. Well, let's see what happened.

Trump 2016 presidency, they had the Supreme Court, they had Congress, he had everything. Oh, what happened? Oh, that's right. He could have the, he get all the votes he wanted. but everything had already been co-opted. All of these checks and balances, they were gone. Might be something, I don't know.

May it just be something, may have something to do with human nature. Ireland's largest award-winning light show experience is back. Wonderlights is now open in three spectacular locations, Malahide Castle and Gardens, and Marley Park in Wendt. and photo house in Cork. Follow the enchanting walking trail

that will captivate all ages as the night comes alive with dazzling displays and unforgettable moments. Who will you Wonderlights with? For dates and bookings, visit wonderlights.com. There's so much rugby on Sports Extra from Sky,

they've asked me to read the whole lad at the same speed I usually use for the legal bit at the end. Here goes. This winter sports extra is jam-packed with rugby. For the first time we've got every Champions Cup match exclusively live, plus action from the URC,

the Challenge Cup and much more. That's the U.RC and a lot. all the best European rugby all in the same place. Get more exclusively live tournaments than ever before on Sports Extra. Jam packed with rugby. Phew, that is a lot of rugby. Get Sports Extra on Sky for 15 euro a month for 12 months. Search Sports Extra.

New Sports Extra customers only. Standard Pressing applies after 12 months for the terms apply. Don't let foot pain or discomfort hold you back. At foot solutions, we specialize in high quality supportive footwear. And use the latest scanning technology to custom-make orthotics, designed for your unique feet. If you want to free your feet in joints from pain, improve balance or correct alignment, book a free foot assessment at footsolutions.com or pop-in store today. Foot Solutions, the first step towards pain-free feet.

But it is no less true that this would be a mere change in the relations of the two parties. The minor and subject party would become the major and dominant party with the same absolute authority and tendency to abuse power. and the major and dominant party would become the minor and subject party with the same right to resist through the ballot box, and, if successful again, to change relations with like effect. But such a state of things must necessarily be temporary. The conflict between the two parties must be transferred sooner or later from an appeal to the ballot box to an appeal to force. So I shall next proceed to explain. This is where I've had people, people I respect, tell me to me to me.

my face that, well, any power that you create to fight back against your enemies will just be used against you. Well, yeah, that's what happens in what we have now, which is basically, which is a democracy, which is really an oligarchy, but it is a democracy. You've got to get rid of the democracy. And anarcho-capitalism isn't the answer. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't have an answer for, I mean, unless you're going to, you know, exclude and get rid of people. And, you know, there are a lot of people out there who understand human nature. And they're called social engineers. And they basically, the reason that you, most people believe something is because of them, even their stuff probably, I mean, I'm not immune to this either.

Social engineers have put things into your mind, and until you get rid of them, or you figure out a way to bypass their influence, I don't know, taking CNN's license to do business away and freezing their bank accounts, same with MSNBC, at this point, same with Fox. Until you do that, I mean, do you think you're going to control the narrative? You think there's a reason why maybe Elon Musk and whatever people were behind him buying Twitter did it? The conflict between the two parties and the government of the numerical majority tends necessarily to settle down into a struggle for the honors and emoliance of the government, and each, in order to obtain an object so ardently desired will, in the process. of the struggle, resort to whatever measure may seem best calculated to affect this purpose.

The adoption, by the one, of any measure, however objectionable, which might give it an advantage, would compel the other to follow its example. In such case, it would be indispensable to success to avoid division and keep united, and hence from a necessity inherent to the nature of such governments, each party must be alternately forced, in order to ensure victory, to resort to measures to concentrate the control of its movements in fewer and fewer hands, as the struggle became more and violent. This, in process of time, must lead to party organization and party caucuses and discipline, and these to the conversion of the honors and amolions of the government into means of rewarding partisan and services in order to secure the fidelity and increase the zeal of the members of the party.

The effect of the whole combined, even in the earlier stages as a process, when they exert the least pernicious influence, would be to place to control of the two parties in the hands of their respective majorities and the government itself virtually under the control of the majority of the dominant party for the time, instead of the majority of the whole community where the theory is, where the theory of this form of government vested. Thus, in the very first stage of the process, the government becomes the government of a minority instead of a majority, a minority usually and under the most favorable circumstances of not much more than one-fourth of the whole community. But the process as regards to concentration of power would not stop at this stage. The government would gradually pass from hands of the majority of the party into those of its leaders, as the struggle becomes more intense in the honors and amoliance of the government, of the government, the government, the government, the party.

all-absorbing objects. At this stage, principles and policy would lose all influence in the elections and cunning, falsehood, deception, slander, fraud, and gross appeals to the appetite of the lowest and most worthless portions of the community would take the place of sound, reason, and wise debate. Does any of this sound familiar? After these have thoroughly debased and corrupted the community,

and all the arts and devices of party have been exorably. the government would vibrate between the two factions for such will parties have become at each successive election. Neither would be able to retain power beyond some fixed term, for those seeking office and patronage would become too numerous to be rewarded by the governments and the patronage at the disposal of the government, and these being the sole objects of pursuit, the disappointed would at the next seceding election throw their weight into the opposite scale in the hope of better success at the next turn of the wheel. These vibrations would continue until confusion, corruption, disorder, and anarchy would lead to an appeal to force, to be followed by a revolution in the form of the government. Such must be the end of the government of the numerical majority and such in brief the process through which it must pass in the regular course of events before it can reach out, before it can reach it.

This transition would be more or less rapid, according to circumstances. the more numerous to population, the more extensive the country, the more diversified the climate, productions, pursuits, and character the people, the more wealthy, refined, and artificial their condition, and the greater the amount of revenues and disbursements, the more unsuited would the community be to such a government, and the more rapid would be the passage. On the other hand, it might be slow in its progress among small communities during the early stages of their existence with inconsiderable revenues and disbursements and a population of simple habits, provided the people are sufficiently intelligence to exercise properly, the right of

suffrage, and sufficiently conversant with the rules necessary to govern the deliberations of legislative bodies. I hope everyone else is listening to this and reading this along and smiling with me, because this is just so, it's so great, it reveals so much. It is, perhaps, the only form of popular government suited to a people while they remain in such a condition. Any other would be not only too complex and cumbersome, but unnecessary to guard against depression, where the motive to use power for that purpose would be so feeble, and hence colonies, from countries having constitutional governments if left to themselves, usually adopt governments based on the numerical majority. But as population increases, wealth accumulates, and above all,

The revenues and expenditures become large. Governments of this form must become less and less suited to the condition of society until if not in the meantime changed into governments of the concurrent majority, they must end in an appeal to force to be followed by a radical change in its structure and character and most probable into monarchy in its absolute form, as we'll be next explained. He saw this so long ago. The country is barely 50 years old, and he saw this. How amazing is this?

You can find this anywhere. I mean, it's free on the Internet. There's good copies of it. It's in the, it's open domain now. So people publish it for real inexpensive on Amazon. I have a little hardcover version that has his discourse on the Constitution. in it as well. I'm not going to read that, though. Constitution bores me. Such indeed is to repugnance between popular governments and force, or to be more specific,

military power, that the almost necessary consequence of a resort to force by such governments in order to maintain their authority is not only a change of their form, but a change into the most opposite, that of absolute monarchy. The two are the opposites of each other. from the nature of popular governments, the kind of absolute monarchy, the change he's talking about is he's talking about that basically what this country started as becomes a monarchy. And you could see that under FDR. I mean, FDR was basically became a monarch. Problem is, is, you know, he didn't pass it along.

If Truman, if he would have given Truman all that power, if he would have taught Truman and had to do all that. If he would have liked Truman at all, you know, it wouldn't, all that power wouldn't have spread out and dispersed itself to the whole rest of the government. So we're at the point now where we have a blob that, you know,

basically no one knows where it begins and no one knows where it starts. The two are the opposites of each other. From the nature of popular governments, the control of its power is vested in the many, while military power to be efficient must be vested in a single individual. all of government to be efficient must be vested in a single individual, a single competent individual. When then, the two parties in governments of the numerical majority resort to force in their struggle for supremacy, he who commands a successful party will have the control of the government itself.

And hence, in such contrasts, the party which may prevail will usually find in the commander of its forces a master, under whom the great body of the community will be glad to find protection against the incessant agitation and violence struggles of the two corrupt factions, looking only to power as the means of securing to themselves the honors and emoliance of the government. From the same cause, there is a like tendency in aristocratical to terminate in absolute governments of the monarchical form, but by no means as strong because there is less repugnance between military power and aristocratical, that between it and democratic, that between it and democratic governments. A broader position may indeed be taken that there is a tendency in constitutional governments of every form to degenerate into their respective absolute forms and in all absolute governments

into that of the monarchical form. But the tendency is much stronger in constitutional governments of the democratic forms to degenerate into their respective absolute forms than in either of the others, because, among other reasons, the distinction between the constitutional and absolute forms of aristocratic and monarchical governments is far more strongly marked than in democratic governments. The effect of that this is to make the different orders or classes in an aristocracy or monarchy far more jealous and watchful of encroachment on their respective rights, and more resolute and preserving in resisting attempts to concentrate power in any one class or order. On the contrary, the line between the two forms in popular governments is so imperfectly understood that honest and sincere friends of the constitutional form, not infrequently,

instead of jealously watching and arresting their tendency to degenerate into their absolute forms, not only regard it with approbation, but employ all their powers to add to its strength and increase its impetus in the vain hope of making the government more perfect and popular, the numerical majority, perhaps, should usually be one of the elements of the constitutional democracy, but to make it the sole element in order to perfect the constitution and make the government more popular is one of the greatest and most fatal political errors. Among the other advantages which governments of the concurrent have over those of the numerical majority and which strongly illustrates their more

and which strongly illustrates their more popular character is that they admit, with safety, a much greater extension of the right of suffrage. It may be safely extended in such governments to universal suffrage, that is, to every male citizen of mature age with few extraordinary exceptions.

But it cannot be so far extended in those of the numerical majority without placing them ultimately under the control of the most ignorant and dependent portions of the community. For as the community becomes populous, wealthy, refined, and highly civilized, the difference between the rich and the poor will become more strongly marked, and the number of the ignorant and dependent greater in proportion to the rest of the community. With the increase of this difference, the tendency to conflict between them,

will become stronger, and as the poor and dependent become more numerous in proportion, there will be, in governments of the numerical majority, no wants of leaders among the wealthy and ambitious to excite and direct them in their efforts to obtain control. The case is difference in governments of the concurrent majority. There, mere numbers have not the absolute control, and the wealthy and intelligent become identified in interest with the poor and ignorant of their respective portions or interests of their community, become their leaders and protectors, and hence, as the latter would have neither hope nor inducement to rally the former in order to obtain the control, the right of suffrage under such a government may be

safely enlarged to the extent stated without incurring the hazard to which such enlargement would expose governments of the numerical majority. Ireland's largest award-winning light show experience is back. Wonderlights is now open in three spectacular locations, Malahide Castle and Gardens, and Marley Park in Dublin and Photo House in Cork. Follow the enchanting walking trail that will captivate all ages as the night comes alive with dazzling displays and unforgettable moments. Who will you Wonderlights with? For dates and bookings, visit wonderlights.i.e.

In another particular, governments of the concurrent majority, already have greatly the advantage. I allude to the difference in their respective tendency in reference to dividing or uniting the community. That of the concurrent has been shown, has been shown, is to unite the community, let its interests be ever so diversified or opposed, while that of the numerical is to divide it into two conflicting portions. Let its interests be naturally ever so united and identified. I think I'm going to stop right there. So I think the great thing about this is it does show that when you have a more Republican form of government,

you can last a lot longer than if you just have a democracy. It's one of the reasons why the progressives are always talking about getting rid of the electoral college, the electoral college has saved us to some extent up until now. It's a lot of people would, you know, say, how could it be much worse than it is right now? And, you know, I would say that it can be, it could be much worse than it is right now. And maybe that little bit, maybe that the federalism that is left is, is saving us from something, is saving us from full-on catastrophe. But, yeah, I mean, what this shows is, it shows that once you take the reins of power out of the hands of one person or a very, very small group of people, you know, usually it's going to be one person.

You have your CEO and you're going to have the board. And once you take the reins away from him and you start giving it, you give it to the board, and then the board passes it down. down to HR and then HR passes it down into the, you know, the secretarial pool. You're screwed. You're screwed. The more people who, the more people who have a say in quote unquote order, the more disorder you're going to have, the more self-interest, the more headbutting over self-interest is going to be. And the easier it is for special interest, to come in and take over. All right, so we're going to stop right there.

We'll pick this up in part three. I want to remind everybody, this is going to, you've already heard, if you made it this far, you've already heard ads. You can get my episodes early and ad free at freemam Beyond the Wall.com forward slash support.

You can do that through my website there. You can do it through Subscribe Star. You can do it through Substack. I still have the Patreon. And I also added Gumroad. So there's a link there directly to Gumroad, which is a place where a lot of our people sell stuff. They try to do their best to help our guys out and not pass the censorship that a lot of us see. So Gumroad is now an option, and you'll have a gum road.

access to early episodes without ads, and you'll have, if you subscribe through there, you'll have access to the Telegram group as well. So, all right, I'll be back for part three. And I'll be back with part three in a couple days, if I know, if I can remember how to talk. And until then, thanks for tuning in. Take care. Bye.