It is so obvious when you concisely explain it. So strikingly obvious yet almost invisible to the vast majority of people. Hidden so well in plain sight and double speak. You are the only one writing at this level of excellence about this level of tyranny. It makes me so mad that only a handful of people are reding this yet millions tune into the BBC every day. One day you will get the recognition you deserve. One day the truth will be celebrated not put in the stocks and mocked. Keep up your fab work. You are a literary warrior armed with a sling up against the hoards of tyranny.
Thanks so much Jim, I really appreciate the support and the kind words. There are other people fighting back and speaking out, thankfully, but very few of us have money behind us or access to a large audience. All the money and power-and hence in most cases all the success and fame-is on the side of tyranny.
Not to be a pedant. But it might be helpful to clarify at the start that you are speaking in the context of ‘small d’ democracy -/ rule by the people, as opposed to majority rules Democracy.
Possibly, but it’s in the actual dictionary definitions of the word Democracy, which I supply at the start. These show that the word democracy applies to both things.
The democrat party is long oast its best used by date, but the Republican party is still heavily influenced by members of the oligarchy. (Yes you, Mitt & Lindsey & Paul Ryan)
A pure democracy is merely two wolves and a sheep voting on what they shall have for dinner.
I prefer a Constitutional Republic, wherein there are fundamental INDIVIDUAL (God-given) rights that cannot ever be voted away by anyone. So long as individual rights are protected, the mob cannot rule, and neither can elected officials. There are SOME things that should NEVER be "voted" on, not EVER.
Our nation now has a majority who work for government, either directly or indirectly. WHO do you think they're voting to eat for dinner? Even assuming the elections were NOT fully rigged (as they currently are) the "democracy" model (over individual rights model) can ONLY lead to tyranny.
I do not think it’s correct to reject Democracy or a say by the majority. That is what the elite do. The elite tell us that the people are too stupid to really have a say. They were saying that when Chartists had to campaign for the working class to have a vote, and they are saying it now whenever ordinary people want or vote for a populist leader or policy. With Brexit and Trump the entrenched elite simply decided to ignore the majority vote. So as soon as we start talking negatively about REAL Democracy we are serving the agenda of the elite.
But likewise when we accept the elite re-definition of Democracy, we are again being mental slaves and willing serfs. That’s when they tell us Trump is a dangerous demagogue or the AfD in Germany should be banned or free opinions are extremist rhetoric or parents at school boards are domestic terrorists. We can’t accept their pretence of ‘defending Democracy’ when really that’s taking it away from us and preserving its control in their hands.
In reality, there isn’t a difference between democracy and individual rights in a just system, because the rights of The People (the rights we acknowledge for every citizen) ARE those individual rights that protect us from arbitrary arrest, fines, property theft, imprisonment, torture or murder by the State. So yes of course there are things that shouldn’t be voted away, principally our rights. And there are things which should never be transferred away. Actual Democracy always recognises that, corrupt democracies sliding into tyranny do not.
The "elite" constantly con you into believing that it's okay to trample on other people's individual rights, so long as the group YOU belong to gets preferential treatment.
For instance, confiscating the products of our labor via taxation for others whom the government decides are more worthy of such things than the middle class, or even the working poor. Once you've voted that it's okay to confiscate the fruits of the labors of others, WHO takes the $$$ and redistributes it? GOVERNMENT. You may not believe such ultimate power is abused, but I disagree. "Tax only the rich" is the comeback. But every single time we approve of confiscating ANYONE'S property and labor, we've approved of this being done to US personally.
Next level of "rights" comes with "collective rights." And this is where we're back to two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. Voting for a representative government is fine, and voting on certain "measures" and laws is fine. But WITHOUT certain INDIVIDUAL rights being protected, (from the voting mob, who routinely declare that individual rights injure "collective" rights) you WILL have pure tyranny. And that knife ALWAYS cuts both ways.
Sooner or later, the majority (mob) who insisted that it was okay to infringe on the individual rights of the "others" will end up being the ones who now desperately need THEIR individual rights protected, but too late. It's this way with free speech. There's a PERIOD at the end of that amendment, i.e., "shall not be infringed." So the "democracy" votes away whichever type of speech they don't like at the moment, only to later find that they're own type of speech is now the sort someone else doesn't like.
PURE democracy is NOT the answer. Without a Republic, (wherein certain INDIVIDUAL rights cannot EVER be infringed, AT ALL) there is ONLY tyranny.
This is a distinction which mainly troubles Americans. It’s based on misreading what democracy is. Democracy is NOT just having votes and then the majority can vote for anything no matter how hideous. Democracy and inalienable individual rights are THE SAME THING. The spirit of thinking that The People must have a say and that The People all have rights the system exists to protect are the same thing, which together is the spirit of Democracy. The votes, the elections-these are mere mechanisms of manifestation (which is why you can have a system with voting in it-like a Soviet or Communist system or like the EU, which is nevertheless fundamentally and deeply anti-democratic. In those cases the voting is only there the way the name Democratic often appears in a Socialist Republic or indeed in the communist entity which is the Democrat Party).
There is no tyranny of the majority possible in a true democracy, because the true democracy only exists to provide some mechanism for the manifestation of the inalienable rights of every citizen. That’s why it’s also true that as soon as this isn’t the case, as soon as the consent is gone or as soon as the system acts tyrannically, the people are being democratic when they rebel.
As an Englishman I have the inalienable right not to be ruled by foreigners. That’s an ancient right my nation exists to protect. That right extends to every English person (to my particular branch of The People). When my government gives power over me to a foreign body, it doesn’t matter that people voted for that party and that government. That government and party never had the right to transfer a power they only held on my behalf, with my temporary consent. But it’s the spirit of Democracy (liberty of the individual and sovereignty of the nation combined) that tells me I have these ancient rights that no vote can contradict.
The alleged Democracy that goes to war with its people, that ignores their individual rights, has ceased to be a Democracy, even if voting continues as a ritual or a disguise of the tyranny it’s enacting. An oppressed people do not have a rule OF the people and this is proven more by the way the government acts than by the votes it claims to have received.
A Constitutional Republic is one wherein the government has but one primary and legitimate function (reason to exist) and this is to protect the individual rights of the people who belong to it.
A Democratic Republic, maintains those protections, and allows for the people to decide who shall represent their interests (in apportionments) at both the state and federal levels. But the elected officials are NOT to involve themselves in altering the individual rights of ANY of the people.
A pure democracy says that nobody has ANY absolute rights UNTIL it's been voted on and then approved/legitimized by the ruling class.
Inalienable rights do not arise from a "democratic vote." They arise only from the premise that such rights are NOT "granted" to people via an elected GOVERNMENT, but are God-given, and as such, no government CAN be legitimate unless it exists PRIMARILY to protect those individual God-given rights.
If you want to understand where individual rights "arose" you might want to actually read the founding documents of this REPUBLIC which we were later (wrongly) informed was merely a "democracy" thereby empowered to vote away INDIVIDUAL rights in favor of the "collective." Have you actually READ the founding documents of this Nation, (wherein it's clearly stated that this is a Republic)?
If your claim is that "rights" are only possible via a "vote" (which translates to government having granted them to us after an election) then I would have to assume you've never actually read our founding documents, from which we've strayed SO far. The "vote" was supposed to be for sending our local representatives to assure the interests of our localities were represented in state and national apportionments. It was NOT intended to be an opportunity for any form of "collective" government which no longer even considers, let alone represents, even the IDEA of any rights that cannot be "infringed" in favor of the collective "democracy" wherein rights are ONLY the consequence of voting.
The lie that's been sold to Americans for so long now, is the lie that this nation was ever INTENDED to be a "democracy." And even so-called "Republicans" have betrayed the foundational premise of God-given rights (which cannot ever be infringed upon BY GOVERNMENT) in favor of one mob or another, and their collective "rights." They also sell the lie that we don't ACTUALLY have any rights that trump the so-called "rights" of the COLLECTIVE which ALWAYS requires that individual rights must be subjugated. And the democrats are very open about the idea nobody should ever maintain ANY individual rights if there is any chance the collective (mob) might be offended in some way by their exercise thereof.
HINT: Whenever you're arguing for COLLECTIVE rights, you're arguing for more GOVERNMENT POWER to abolish individual rights. There is no "collective" right enforced against individuals WITHOUT government force. When government says "We care. We will help you. Just vote for us to have MORE power to limit the individual rights of the "others" (i.e., free speech, property rights, THE RIGHT TO THE FRUITS OF OUR OWN LABORS, right to self-defense, right to medical freedom, right to freedom of association, i.e., the right to choose whom one wishes to do business with or hang out with, etc.) - what they are saying is:
"GIVE THE GOVERNMENT MORE POWER TO ABOLISH THE VERY IDEA ANYONE EVER HAD ANY INDIVIUAL RIGHTS THAT COULD NOT BE INFRINGED UPON."
I do not agree with the collectivist model which says that "So long as the mob voted for it, it's a good thing." Elections can (and are) rigged. And the idea that we can either create or protect individual rights via an election (which will determine what those rights shall be, and for WHOM) is untrue.
Please do read the founding documents of this Nation, where you will see it was actually a very good foundation for freedom. Straying AWAY from these ideals is what got us into trouble. So when I saw the words "This is not a democracy" I was hoping the post would point out that this Nation was not INTENDED to be a democracy, and WHY this is so. Instead, you've demonized a Constitutional Republican form of government, and pretended that this Nation was intended to be a pure democracy, without even knowing what's contained in our founding documents, let alone what their purpose was.
A pure democracy, again, is NOT how one protects individual rights. It's how the government cons the people into believing that if they vote against the right of others, THEY will get goodies and special treatment or protections.
I think you're talking about a democratic REPUBLIC, much like that described in MY Nation's founding documents. We intended to escape British Crown with our declaration of independence. Therein, you'll find great wisdom. Please do READ these things? If you believe you are not endowed by your creator with these rights, and that they are only granted to you after a vote, then we're not on the same page. Collectivist forms of government are ALWAYS tyrannies.
We are talking at cross purposes. The definitions I shared make it clear that democracy does not mean just voting and then anything the majority vote for no matter how hideous can be done to the People. Democracy means voting as the means of protecting the innate rights of the People. So a government or a system that brings a vote designed to reduce the innate rights of the People (for example by signing them into foreign bondage, or mandating they take a medical experiment against their will) is automatically doing something undemocratic EVEN if the majority are fooled into voting for it.
The Founders were brilliantly articulate in the Declaration and the Constitution regarding the innate rights of the People and how these are the true purpose of government. But their comments on Democracy can ignore the difference between the spirit of Democracy and exact forms taken to ensure that. You repeat that error presumably because you think the Founders were infallible. But really a vote that unjustly harms the People, and designs to do so, is by its malignancy against the spirit of Demovracy, which is all about recognising that the People have the real power and all exercise of power to be just, must be to the end of protecting every citizens innate rights.
In England, we had an ancient unwritten constitution, as well as Common Law, so we are more used to distinguishing between mere mechanisms and the spirit of Democracy based on ancient innate rights held by the People. It was actually this ancient sense of English liberty that prompted the Revolution.
If you view Democracy as JUST majority vote, then your point re it and the Founders fear of it are justified. But really the Founders themselves beautifully articulated that Democracy is MORE than that, voting exists as the defence of innate rights in a specific People. When the government entirely forgets that, the most democratic thing you can do is overthrow it.
What's been fallible, is our willingness to surrender the premises outlined in the founding documents, claiming they are "outdated." Had they been adhered to, we wouldn't be in this mess. But people who see the mess we're in, make the false claim it's due to the founding premises, rather than the fact we've strayed from them in favor of collectivism/communist ideals, as well as fascist ideals of "public private partnership" between government and private interests.
And it's always in the name of the government stepping in to "help the people."
It’s a federal republic, yes. But this is a major misconception that Americans make. Democracy is more than just direct democracy. Democracy is the ‘rule of the people’. You have can systems with voting that aren’t democratic, and you can systems with checks and balances against a tyranny of the majority that ARE still democratic (in terms of the spirit of the term, and ultimate power lying in the people and their consent to the system). Americans tend to think that because they are not a direct democracy and the Founders warned against a tyranny of the majority, they aren’t a democracy. But the US was founded on the rule of the people, so ultimately it is. If the system is for the people and expresses the will of the people, it’s democratic in the purest sense, even if not in the direct sense.
It’s not just the vote. The Soviet Union had votes. It’s the spirit of all parts of the government and system knowing they are servants of the people rather than our masters. That’s what really has been lost.
It is so obvious when you concisely explain it. So strikingly obvious yet almost invisible to the vast majority of people. Hidden so well in plain sight and double speak. You are the only one writing at this level of excellence about this level of tyranny. It makes me so mad that only a handful of people are reding this yet millions tune into the BBC every day. One day you will get the recognition you deserve. One day the truth will be celebrated not put in the stocks and mocked. Keep up your fab work. You are a literary warrior armed with a sling up against the hoards of tyranny.
Thanks so much Jim, I really appreciate the support and the kind words. There are other people fighting back and speaking out, thankfully, but very few of us have money behind us or access to a large audience. All the money and power-and hence in most cases all the success and fame-is on the side of tyranny.
Not to be a pedant. But it might be helpful to clarify at the start that you are speaking in the context of ‘small d’ democracy -/ rule by the people, as opposed to majority rules Democracy.
Possibly, but it’s in the actual dictionary definitions of the word Democracy, which I supply at the start. These show that the word democracy applies to both things.
Well said Jupplandia!
Thanks 😀
The democrat party is long oast its best used by date, but the Republican party is still heavily influenced by members of the oligarchy. (Yes you, Mitt & Lindsey & Paul Ryan)
Sadly true.
Very well written. Clear as a bell.
Thank you.
Thanks very much, glad you liked it. 😀😀
Absolutely. The people need to find ways to make them hurt.
A pure democracy is merely two wolves and a sheep voting on what they shall have for dinner.
I prefer a Constitutional Republic, wherein there are fundamental INDIVIDUAL (God-given) rights that cannot ever be voted away by anyone. So long as individual rights are protected, the mob cannot rule, and neither can elected officials. There are SOME things that should NEVER be "voted" on, not EVER.
Our nation now has a majority who work for government, either directly or indirectly. WHO do you think they're voting to eat for dinner? Even assuming the elections were NOT fully rigged (as they currently are) the "democracy" model (over individual rights model) can ONLY lead to tyranny.
I do not think it’s correct to reject Democracy or a say by the majority. That is what the elite do. The elite tell us that the people are too stupid to really have a say. They were saying that when Chartists had to campaign for the working class to have a vote, and they are saying it now whenever ordinary people want or vote for a populist leader or policy. With Brexit and Trump the entrenched elite simply decided to ignore the majority vote. So as soon as we start talking negatively about REAL Democracy we are serving the agenda of the elite.
But likewise when we accept the elite re-definition of Democracy, we are again being mental slaves and willing serfs. That’s when they tell us Trump is a dangerous demagogue or the AfD in Germany should be banned or free opinions are extremist rhetoric or parents at school boards are domestic terrorists. We can’t accept their pretence of ‘defending Democracy’ when really that’s taking it away from us and preserving its control in their hands.
In reality, there isn’t a difference between democracy and individual rights in a just system, because the rights of The People (the rights we acknowledge for every citizen) ARE those individual rights that protect us from arbitrary arrest, fines, property theft, imprisonment, torture or murder by the State. So yes of course there are things that shouldn’t be voted away, principally our rights. And there are things which should never be transferred away. Actual Democracy always recognises that, corrupt democracies sliding into tyranny do not.
The "elite" constantly con you into believing that it's okay to trample on other people's individual rights, so long as the group YOU belong to gets preferential treatment.
For instance, confiscating the products of our labor via taxation for others whom the government decides are more worthy of such things than the middle class, or even the working poor. Once you've voted that it's okay to confiscate the fruits of the labors of others, WHO takes the $$$ and redistributes it? GOVERNMENT. You may not believe such ultimate power is abused, but I disagree. "Tax only the rich" is the comeback. But every single time we approve of confiscating ANYONE'S property and labor, we've approved of this being done to US personally.
Next level of "rights" comes with "collective rights." And this is where we're back to two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. Voting for a representative government is fine, and voting on certain "measures" and laws is fine. But WITHOUT certain INDIVIDUAL rights being protected, (from the voting mob, who routinely declare that individual rights injure "collective" rights) you WILL have pure tyranny. And that knife ALWAYS cuts both ways.
Sooner or later, the majority (mob) who insisted that it was okay to infringe on the individual rights of the "others" will end up being the ones who now desperately need THEIR individual rights protected, but too late. It's this way with free speech. There's a PERIOD at the end of that amendment, i.e., "shall not be infringed." So the "democracy" votes away whichever type of speech they don't like at the moment, only to later find that they're own type of speech is now the sort someone else doesn't like.
PURE democracy is NOT the answer. Without a Republic, (wherein certain INDIVIDUAL rights cannot EVER be infringed, AT ALL) there is ONLY tyranny.
This is a distinction which mainly troubles Americans. It’s based on misreading what democracy is. Democracy is NOT just having votes and then the majority can vote for anything no matter how hideous. Democracy and inalienable individual rights are THE SAME THING. The spirit of thinking that The People must have a say and that The People all have rights the system exists to protect are the same thing, which together is the spirit of Democracy. The votes, the elections-these are mere mechanisms of manifestation (which is why you can have a system with voting in it-like a Soviet or Communist system or like the EU, which is nevertheless fundamentally and deeply anti-democratic. In those cases the voting is only there the way the name Democratic often appears in a Socialist Republic or indeed in the communist entity which is the Democrat Party).
There is no tyranny of the majority possible in a true democracy, because the true democracy only exists to provide some mechanism for the manifestation of the inalienable rights of every citizen. That’s why it’s also true that as soon as this isn’t the case, as soon as the consent is gone or as soon as the system acts tyrannically, the people are being democratic when they rebel.
As an Englishman I have the inalienable right not to be ruled by foreigners. That’s an ancient right my nation exists to protect. That right extends to every English person (to my particular branch of The People). When my government gives power over me to a foreign body, it doesn’t matter that people voted for that party and that government. That government and party never had the right to transfer a power they only held on my behalf, with my temporary consent. But it’s the spirit of Democracy (liberty of the individual and sovereignty of the nation combined) that tells me I have these ancient rights that no vote can contradict.
The alleged Democracy that goes to war with its people, that ignores their individual rights, has ceased to be a Democracy, even if voting continues as a ritual or a disguise of the tyranny it’s enacting. An oppressed people do not have a rule OF the people and this is proven more by the way the government acts than by the votes it claims to have received.
A Constitutional Republic is one wherein the government has but one primary and legitimate function (reason to exist) and this is to protect the individual rights of the people who belong to it.
A Democratic Republic, maintains those protections, and allows for the people to decide who shall represent their interests (in apportionments) at both the state and federal levels. But the elected officials are NOT to involve themselves in altering the individual rights of ANY of the people.
A pure democracy says that nobody has ANY absolute rights UNTIL it's been voted on and then approved/legitimized by the ruling class.
Inalienable rights do not arise from a "democratic vote." They arise only from the premise that such rights are NOT "granted" to people via an elected GOVERNMENT, but are God-given, and as such, no government CAN be legitimate unless it exists PRIMARILY to protect those individual God-given rights.
If you want to understand where individual rights "arose" you might want to actually read the founding documents of this REPUBLIC which we were later (wrongly) informed was merely a "democracy" thereby empowered to vote away INDIVIDUAL rights in favor of the "collective." Have you actually READ the founding documents of this Nation, (wherein it's clearly stated that this is a Republic)?
If your claim is that "rights" are only possible via a "vote" (which translates to government having granted them to us after an election) then I would have to assume you've never actually read our founding documents, from which we've strayed SO far. The "vote" was supposed to be for sending our local representatives to assure the interests of our localities were represented in state and national apportionments. It was NOT intended to be an opportunity for any form of "collective" government which no longer even considers, let alone represents, even the IDEA of any rights that cannot be "infringed" in favor of the collective "democracy" wherein rights are ONLY the consequence of voting.
The lie that's been sold to Americans for so long now, is the lie that this nation was ever INTENDED to be a "democracy." And even so-called "Republicans" have betrayed the foundational premise of God-given rights (which cannot ever be infringed upon BY GOVERNMENT) in favor of one mob or another, and their collective "rights." They also sell the lie that we don't ACTUALLY have any rights that trump the so-called "rights" of the COLLECTIVE which ALWAYS requires that individual rights must be subjugated. And the democrats are very open about the idea nobody should ever maintain ANY individual rights if there is any chance the collective (mob) might be offended in some way by their exercise thereof.
HINT: Whenever you're arguing for COLLECTIVE rights, you're arguing for more GOVERNMENT POWER to abolish individual rights. There is no "collective" right enforced against individuals WITHOUT government force. When government says "We care. We will help you. Just vote for us to have MORE power to limit the individual rights of the "others" (i.e., free speech, property rights, THE RIGHT TO THE FRUITS OF OUR OWN LABORS, right to self-defense, right to medical freedom, right to freedom of association, i.e., the right to choose whom one wishes to do business with or hang out with, etc.) - what they are saying is:
"GIVE THE GOVERNMENT MORE POWER TO ABOLISH THE VERY IDEA ANYONE EVER HAD ANY INDIVIUAL RIGHTS THAT COULD NOT BE INFRINGED UPON."
I do not agree with the collectivist model which says that "So long as the mob voted for it, it's a good thing." Elections can (and are) rigged. And the idea that we can either create or protect individual rights via an election (which will determine what those rights shall be, and for WHOM) is untrue.
Please do read the founding documents of this Nation, where you will see it was actually a very good foundation for freedom. Straying AWAY from these ideals is what got us into trouble. So when I saw the words "This is not a democracy" I was hoping the post would point out that this Nation was not INTENDED to be a democracy, and WHY this is so. Instead, you've demonized a Constitutional Republican form of government, and pretended that this Nation was intended to be a pure democracy, without even knowing what's contained in our founding documents, let alone what their purpose was.
A pure democracy, again, is NOT how one protects individual rights. It's how the government cons the people into believing that if they vote against the right of others, THEY will get goodies and special treatment or protections.
I think you're talking about a democratic REPUBLIC, much like that described in MY Nation's founding documents. We intended to escape British Crown with our declaration of independence. Therein, you'll find great wisdom. Please do READ these things? If you believe you are not endowed by your creator with these rights, and that they are only granted to you after a vote, then we're not on the same page. Collectivist forms of government are ALWAYS tyrannies.
We are talking at cross purposes. The definitions I shared make it clear that democracy does not mean just voting and then anything the majority vote for no matter how hideous can be done to the People. Democracy means voting as the means of protecting the innate rights of the People. So a government or a system that brings a vote designed to reduce the innate rights of the People (for example by signing them into foreign bondage, or mandating they take a medical experiment against their will) is automatically doing something undemocratic EVEN if the majority are fooled into voting for it.
The Founders were brilliantly articulate in the Declaration and the Constitution regarding the innate rights of the People and how these are the true purpose of government. But their comments on Democracy can ignore the difference between the spirit of Democracy and exact forms taken to ensure that. You repeat that error presumably because you think the Founders were infallible. But really a vote that unjustly harms the People, and designs to do so, is by its malignancy against the spirit of Demovracy, which is all about recognising that the People have the real power and all exercise of power to be just, must be to the end of protecting every citizens innate rights.
In England, we had an ancient unwritten constitution, as well as Common Law, so we are more used to distinguishing between mere mechanisms and the spirit of Democracy based on ancient innate rights held by the People. It was actually this ancient sense of English liberty that prompted the Revolution.
If you view Democracy as JUST majority vote, then your point re it and the Founders fear of it are justified. But really the Founders themselves beautifully articulated that Democracy is MORE than that, voting exists as the defence of innate rights in a specific People. When the government entirely forgets that, the most democratic thing you can do is overthrow it.
What's been fallible, is our willingness to surrender the premises outlined in the founding documents, claiming they are "outdated." Had they been adhered to, we wouldn't be in this mess. But people who see the mess we're in, make the false claim it's due to the founding premises, rather than the fact we've strayed from them in favor of collectivism/communist ideals, as well as fascist ideals of "public private partnership" between government and private interests.
And it's always in the name of the government stepping in to "help the people."
The US u it s not a democracy, it’s a republic.
It’s a federal republic, yes. But this is a major misconception that Americans make. Democracy is more than just direct democracy. Democracy is the ‘rule of the people’. You have can systems with voting that aren’t democratic, and you can systems with checks and balances against a tyranny of the majority that ARE still democratic (in terms of the spirit of the term, and ultimate power lying in the people and their consent to the system). Americans tend to think that because they are not a direct democracy and the Founders warned against a tyranny of the majority, they aren’t a democracy. But the US was founded on the rule of the people, so ultimately it is. If the system is for the people and expresses the will of the people, it’s democratic in the purest sense, even if not in the direct sense.
It’s not just the vote. The Soviet Union had votes. It’s the spirit of all parts of the government and system knowing they are servants of the people rather than our masters. That’s what really has been lost.