Theocracy or Democracy? by Valerie Cheers Brown

You might wonder what is ‘theocracy?

It was a period of origin: 1st century AD?’

Theocracy is a Greek term which was a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

Democracy is a system of the government of the people, by the people and of the people.

Democracy is also a Greek, Latin and French term which began in a period of origin: 5th century BC.

Democracy is suppose to be a system which is for the people, by the people and of the people.

  • The right to life is the source of all rights — and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.  

The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave. ~ Ayn Rand

Now consider the extent of the moral and political inversion in today’s prevalent view of government. Instead of being a protector of man’s rights, the government is becoming their most dangerous violator; instead of guarding freedom, the government is establishing slavery; instead of protecting men from the initiators of physical force, the government is initiating physical force and coercion in any manner and issue it pleases; instead of serving as the instrument of objectivity in human relationships, the government is creating a deadly, subterranean reign of uncertainty and fear, by means of nonobjective laws whose interpretation is left to the arbitrary decisions of random bureaucrats; instead of protecting men from injury by whim, the government is arrogating to itself the power of unlimited whim—so that we are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

It has often been remarked that in spite of its material progress, mankind has not achieved any comparable degree of moral progress. That remark is usually followed by some pessimistic conclusion about human nature. It is true that the moral state of mankind is disgracefully low. But if one considers the monstrous moral inversions of the governments (made possible by the altruist-collectivist morality) under which mankind has had to live through most of its history, one begins to wonder how men have managed to preserve even a semblance of civilization, and what indestructible vestige of self-esteem has kept them walking upright on two feet.

One also begins to see more clearly the nature of the political principles that have to be accepted and advocated, as part of the battle for man’s intellectual Renaissance.

Doesn’t it make the legal system just as bad when they wrongfully accuse a man and then after over 30 years they find proof of innocense? Was this not suppose to be proven before he sat all of that time?

Isn’t this taking another humans life disobeying what the Bible states “innocent until proven guilty” has been known and proclaimed since the earliest of times. The now-familiar “scales of justice” and “lady justice” originated long ago – in surprising places.

Even though the Constitution of the United States does not mention it explicitly, presumption of innocence is commonly sustained by the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. Consequently, it is a right that is so central to modern democracies that many have explicitly included it in their legal systems and constitutions. In fact, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11, states that: ‘Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.’

The magic phrase right there, “he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.”

What went wrong with the man who got charged for a crime who did not do this crime and spent a big portion of his life in prison?

Okay, now since there was no crime found that this man did, did the legal system not do this man unfair justice when  they had him to sit and rot away in prison for a crime he did not do.

Now, this prosecuting attorney and the law want to justify why they did was wrong after the fact?

A human life, who by the way had a family who now are in bereavement for their loved ones passing and are doubly in dismay for him sitting and rotting in prison, for a crime which he never even committed or left with only sad memories and the media know speaking about him heavily.

I am so sick and tired of people not getting justice while they are alive, and only after they are gone then they get talked about and the villain who perpetrated them are given the glory like they are a movie star or something.

How do you think this poor man must have felt and that would have killed me too sitting there thinking even God had forgotten him?

Now that this man has passed and died, his family are left with only memories and a pat on the back with sorry as the supposed cure for the method for the legal systems madness?

This makes me only think about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. quote.

One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

What does this mean?

An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.” – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” ~ Aug 13, 2013
What you propose this unjust legal system has done and would you not say that they committed and used unjust laws?
Ayn Rand goes on to say:

All laws must be objective (and objectively justifiable): men must know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law forbids them to do (and why), what constitutes a crime and what penalty they will incur if they commit it. ~ Ayn Rand

Man’s Rights
by Ayn Rand

If one wishes to advocate a free society — that is, capitalism — one must realize that its indispensable foundation is the principle of individual rights. If one wishes to uphold individual rights, one must realize that capitalism is the only system that can uphold and protect them. And if one wishes to gauge the relationship of freedom to the goals of today’s intellectuals, one may gauge it by the fact that the concept of individual rights is evaded, distorted, perverted and seldom discussed, most conspicuously seldom by the so-called “conservatives.”

“Rights” are a moral concept — the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others — the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context — the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

Every political system is based on some code of ethics. The dominant ethics of mankind’s history were variants of the altruist-collectivist doctrine which subordinated the individual to some higher authority, either mystical or social. Consequently, most political systems were variants of the same statist tyranny, differing only in degree, not in basic principle, limited only by the accidents of tradition, of chaos, of bloody strife and periodic collapse. Under all such systems, morality was a code applicable to the individual, but not to society. Society was placed outside the moral law, as its embodiment or source or exclusive interpreter — and the inculcation of self-sacrificial devotion to social duty was regarded as the main purpose of ethics in man’s earthly existence.

Since there is no such entity as “society,” since society is only a number of individual men, this meant, in practice, that the rulers of society were exempt from moral law; subject only to traditional rituals, they held total power and exacted blind obedience — on the implicit principle of: “The good is that which is good for society (or for the tribe, the race, the nation), and the ruler’s edicts are its voice on earth.”

This was true of all statist systems, under all variants of the altruist-collectivist ethics, mystical or social. “The Divine Right of Kings” summarizes the political theory of the first —”Vox populi, vox dei” of the second. As witness: the theocracy of Egypt, with the Pharaoh as an embodied god — the unlimited majority rule or democracy of Athens — the welfare state run by the Emperors of Rome — the Inquisition of the late Middle Ages — the absolute monarchy of France — the welfare state of Bismarck’s Prussia — the gas chambers of Nazi Germany — the slaughterhouse of the Soviet Union.

All these political systems were expressions of the altruist-collectivist ethics — and their common characteristic is the fact that society stood above the moral law, as an omnipotent, sovereign whim worshiper. Thus, politically, all these systems were variants of an amoral society.

The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was thesubordination of society to moral law.

The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system — as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history.

All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action — which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action — specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive — of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntaryuncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God — others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature.

The Declaration of Independence stated that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man’s origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind — a rational being — that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.

“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A — and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” (Atlas Shrugged)

To violate man’s rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force. There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two — by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first.

The Declaration of Independence laid down the principle that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose: to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence.

Thus the government’s function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of servant. The government was set to protect man from criminals — and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government — as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power.

The result was the pattern of a civilized society which — for the brief span of some hundred and fifty years — America came close to achieving. A civilized society is one in which physical force is banned from human relationships — in which the government, acting as a policeman, may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.

This was the essential meaning and intent of America’s political philosophy, implicit in the principle of individual rights. But it was not formulated explicitly, nor fully accepted nor consistently practiced.

Wondering which countries have Theocracy? Here you get a complete list of Theocracy countries which include all the nations in the world. Theocracy is prevalent among many countries across the globe. Since its emergence centuries ago, many nations have applied Theocracy government. A continent wise sorted Theocracy countries list is available over here. Get to know what regions and countries are governed or ruled by Theocracy, right from the leading nations to the small developing nations. Asian, American, European, African and other continents which have the type of government as Theocracy have been given below. This list includes all the past and present Theocracy countries.

Since its origin years ago, Theocracy has been applied as a type of government in many countries. While studying about Theocracy, knowing Countries with Theocracy is significantly important to get an idea about presence of Theocracy countries around the globe. Find out about how Theocracy is spread across the world! Also, you can now get a general idea about the countries of Theocracy from the past and in the present times as well.Get a complete list for all the Theocracy countries in the past and current times. Also find out Theocracy Definition, History of Theocracy, Characteristics of Theocracy and a brief Theocracy summary to get the idea of entire government system along with countries of Theocracy. Every country needs a leader and hence arises the need of some sort of governance. The government system in each country is set according to the need of rules in the country. If there is no political system to regulate the country, it would suffer due to unjust practices of society.,_objective_and_non-objective.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s