We have a vast array of words to describe different types of governmental systems. These words and terms can become a boggling confusion sometimes but it ultimately all boils down to collectivism vs. individualism. These two simple polar opposites underlie the fabric of all ideologies of governance. This used to be discussed much more in classical periods of time but now our teachings have almost all but forgotten these terms. Today, politics and political ideology seems like such a confusing bundle of terms and words that many would rather not even bother with it. Who can blame one? The truth is that things are much simpler than they seem. It all breaks down to individualism or collectivism and different points between these two extremes.
Systems such as socialism, Nazism, fascism, Marxism, communism and Leninism and even a pure democracy are all ultimately forms of collectivism, where the individual must be sacrificed for the greater good of the group. It is a majority rule where the greater good for the greater number of people is endlessly sought after. It often sounds very logical but any form of collectivism is actually not such a great idea because individuals and minorities and sometimes even large segments of the population get treated very badly. The Jews in WWII is probably the most extreme example of this. Even a pure democracy is not a good idea, no matter how often it is regularly touted as being our American model of governance, because it is a majority rule type of governance.
The reason why collectivism and majority rule is not such a great idea is because there is no such thing as a group. It is an abstract idea. There are only individuals. Many individuals make up a group. Just as how trees make up a forest. A "forest" does not exist and will never exist. A forest is an abstract idea; there is not really any such thing as a forest, there are only trees. So when you base a political ideology on an abstraction you run into all kinds of problems.
Under collectivism, individuals will endlessly be cut off from total freedom as the passions and mindsets of the public are endless sought after through public policy. The mythical "group" is always changing and morphing and the ideology of collectivism drags all individuals along for the ride that majority rule takes them despite their own personal preferences.
That is why our American founders never intended or wanted us to have a pure democracy, they intended a very limited type of democracy where it was majority rule only to the very limited extent that the constitution authorized. Namely that no democratic rulings ever stomped on the rights of the individual.
In a pure democracy it is common for collectivist ideas and regulations to waste time and taxpayers money that hinder the freedom of the individual because there are no safeguards against what can and cannot become law. Abortion, for example, no matter what your ethical stance, is a non-issue in the sense that it should be completely and utterly up to the individual to make their own choice without any governmental interference. This has popularly been called "freedom". Today most of the public seems to think that freedom is simply not being in jail.
This is the difference between a republic and a democracy. A republic is a very limited form of democracy that allows no laws that interfere with the rights and freedoms of the individual. For further example, having a law that requires individuals to wear seat belts; or having laws that regulate handguns; or having a law that bans any type of drug are all collectivist un-American laws that interfere with the basic self-governance and individualism of a person. The purpose of a republic is simply to protect your inalienable rights that are your birthright to be truly free like any other creature of nature, nothing more and nothing less.
(Besides, our drug problem wouldn't be nearly as bad if our own CIA didn't have a history of drug trafficking anyway
http://fas.org/irp/congress/1998_cr/980507-l.htm http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm Drug control is really not a priority to the criminals who have hijacked governments because they want as much chaos and distractions in society as possible so that people are too preoccupied to figure this all out. Isn't it odd that programs such as the "war on drugs" and the "war on cancer" and so forth have done nothing and the drug problems and cancer problems have only gotten far worse and yet taxpayers are being sucked dry for these useless socialist/collectivist programs?)
It seems that this idea of republic vs democracy is not even really taught in our grade schools any longer. I never learned this. Even in all of my college courses I never learned this. It is usually only talk of democracy that I ever hear.
With individualism you are your own owner and boss and with collectivism there is always an elite who dominate over the mass. The entire world is slipping towards totalitarian collectivism if you look at the historical trends. You don't even really have to look at evidence or documents to see the trends and the gradual loses of freedom over the past hundred years to see that there is a method behind the madness.
America was surely a model of freedom for about 200 years but our republic was hijacked by criminals at least 50 years ago and we simply need to take it back by organizing and reclaiming power. This is exactly how the pirates who are currently controlling our American government did it. They were well organized and well funded by powerful people like the J.P. Morgans, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers of the world. They formed organizations and foreign policy think tanks, most notably the Council on Foreign Relations, and virtually every presidency since Harry Truman has been surrounded by Council on Foreign Relations members and our country has since become a big-business run imperial resource usurper.
Those who wish to exploit and control others and the resources of the world are naturally attracted towards government because that is where you can make laws and regulations and control an army to impose the will of big-business. Those who love freedom and independence are not power hungry and are naturally not attracted towards government because they simply wish to be content, happy and free. And lets not forget about the indifferent majority of the masses who lay between the freedom loving individualist advocates and the power elite collectivist advocates. So it makes sense why maniacs with maniacal ends have gotten a strong foothold within government without as much trouble or attention as one might think.
So it seems clear that as much as freedom lovers don't wish to have power over others through the use of government - they have to take the reigns of government because our species' future is in danger. Power is dangerous but its clear that not having power is even more dangerous. Similarly, guns are dangerous but it is quite likely more dangerous not to have them.
We need to take power in the exact same way that the criminals did it. I think that we are getting very close to accomplishing this with campaigns and organizations such as Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty. I don't want to be a slave to a totalitarian world state and I know that you don't want your children or grandchildren to be slaves either. A world republic type government would and could be a great idea sometime in the future - but not in the way that it has covertly been set up over the, at least, past hundred years by manipulating wars and societies for an always increasing centralization of power and a diminishment of basic freedoms.
Individualists are oftentimes attacked for not caring about others or for not caring about society, but I don't think that this is the case at all. Charities and organizations that lend a helpful hand to others who are in need are excellent things to have, but donations to them must be through freedom of choice and never through government coercion. Understanding the basic theory behind individualism and collectivism, in my opinion, leads to no other conclusion than that full individualism is the only way to ever peacefully govern a society.
This passage was largely inspired by G Edward Griffin.