Breaking News, World News and Taiwan News.

Updated Thursday, February 5, 2009 1:10 pm TWN, The China Post news staff

Sponsors
▪	Buy china wholesale products from reliable chinese wholesalers on DHgate.com!
▪	Save 75% for all hotels in Shanghai, Beijing and whole China. Lowest rates for Flights in China.
▪	Get the best deals for Guangzhou Hotels or choose from more than 10,000 hotels in 499 Chinese cities.
▪	Find great real time deals on China Flights. Book flights to China or China domestic flights 24/7.

The Republic of China: A Republic, not a Democracy (Part III)

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Bill of Rights, wrote “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.”

James Fenimore Cooper, author of “The Last of the Mohicans,” wrote “It is the besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which the masses of men exhibit their tyranny.”

Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged,” wrote “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities, and the smallest minority on earth is the individual.”

Jefferson, Cooper, and Rand understood an essential truth, one that modern “champions of democracy” have clearly forgotten. Numerical superiority is not political legitimacy. Numerical superiority is merely might, not right. Might does not make right. It never has, and never will.

What then, does make right? From where does political legitimacy originate? The answer is it originates in nature. It originates in the sovereign individual's natural right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That right is not subject to veto by a “democratic majority,” i.e., a bigger gang.

Let's examine three forms of government: monarchies, democracies, and republics. Ask any contemporary champion of democracy which of these three forms of government differs the most from the others, and he will answer “Why, monarchies, of course.” He will be wrong. The correct answer is republics. Republics differ from monarchies in kind. Democracies differ from monarchies only in degree.

Democracies do not liberate mankind from tyranny. Democracies merely substitute one form of tyranny for another. Democracies merely substitute the tyranny of an elective dictator, who ascends to power with the backing of a powerful gang known as a democratic majority for the tyranny of a hereditary dictator, who ascends to power with the backing of a powerful gang known as a standing army.

Democracies merely substitute the tyranny of the many for the tyranny of the one. As Thomas Jefferson warned, democracies oppress the individual, abuse their strength, and acting on the law of the jungle, undermine the foundations of civilized society. As James Fenimore Cooper warned, democracies enable the masses of men to exhibit their tyranny by substituting public opinion for law. As Ayn Rand warned, democracies subject individual rights to the public vote, vote away the rights of the minority, and oppress minorities, the smallest of which is the individual.

1|2|Next Page>>

Related Stories

▪	The Republic of China: A Republic, not a Democracy (Part II)
▪	The Republic of China: A Republic, not a Democracy (Part I)

Comments

February 5, 2009 dsilver@

We get it. The China Post is yearning for a return of cozy dictatorship. Well, guess what? China is now just a short flight away!

February 5, 2009 mtsai16@

What do you call the Chiang father-son political tenure in Taiwan? I am reminded that it preceded similar current familial governments in North Korea and Cuba.

Does a minority group without legitimate power have the right to take away the rights of the majority? (Think Assad father-son government in Syria.)

Please correct me if I am wrong. I have learned that the KMT fled Mainland China after having lost the civil war to the Communist Party. Who was the legitimate government after the civil war?

Why did the KMT, without an invitation or approval from the people of Taiwan, impose its government on Taiwan? Wasn't this a case of a minority group taking away the rights of the majority group?

It seems to me that the island of Taiwan, on the periphery of the Chinese territory, was used as a pawn in its transfer to Japan in 1895 after the First Sino-Japanese War. In this case, does China (the majority) have the right to vote away the rights of Taiwan (a minority)?

Only after WWII was Taiwan free of Japanese control. But to whom did it belong? Moreover, who likes to be neglected during times of trouble only to be reclaimed by their parents when they have grown up and charted their own course of life?

February 5, 2009 j.coles54@

Read your own constitution:

The Republic of China, founded on the Three Principles of the People, shall be a democratic republic of the people, to be governed by the people and for the people.

February 5, 2009 mtsai16@

It seems to me that many of America's Founding Fathers -- despite having fought off British elitism -- were elitist themselves.

Here is the question I pose to everyone: Isn't there a bit of elitism or elitist-wannabe in each and every one of us?

Did Jefferson forget to mention that he (a wealthy white plantation owner), oppressing his black slaves and raping a female one, is guilty of a crime, abuses his strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of the slaves' society?

February 5, 2009 jimbrown@

The definition of "democracy" is: two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for lunch.

I am amazed that this analysis is presented in Taiwan and China, because it could not be published in the USA today. We have forgotten that the basic political unit is the individual citizen who possesses inalienable rights. Is Western civilization moving East?

February 5, 2009 china.5.harbin@

Excellent analysis! It's either/or--either the rights of the individual are inviolable or they are not. If not, then the end of that road is Red China, or any other dictatorship. And Ayn Rand's “Atlas Shrugged” shows you how things slide down that road.

It's amazing to me that some of the other comments on this very clear article show zero understanding of even what the editorial's position is. Try actually thinking about things, guys.

February 6, 2009 j.coles54@

This is just a pathetic attempt to rationalize authoritarianism. Furthermore, having very little sense of American history, you do not understand the full meaning of the quotes you cherry-picked to support your argument. Try this one out:

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
~Thomas Jefferson

Yes, men like George Washington and Martin Luther King Jr. brought "chaos" to America for disrupting the calm of despotism didn't they?

February 6, 2009 editor@

Please note that constitutional republicanism is what protects the Pan Green minority from potential abuse by a Pan Blue democratic majority, and that constitutional republicanism once protected the free market minority of Chinese on Taiwan from the pro Marxist majority of Chinese on the mainland (in legal principle, albeit not militarily).

February 6, 2009 mtsai16@

editor@ wrote:
Please note that constitutional republicanism is what protects the Pan Green minority from potential abuse by a Pan Blue democratic majority, and that constitutional republicanism once protected the free market minority of Chinese on Taiwan from the pro Marxist majority of Chinese on the mainland (in legal principle, albeit not militarily).

Whatever happened to Chen Shui-bian's rights as an individual? In a democracy, one has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Doesn't his incarceration show that his rights have been taken away from him? Moreover, it seems to me that an oligarchy of judges and prosecutors performing a satirical skit was bent on oppressing an individual.

February 8, 2009 taiwanstatus@

The argument is sound.

But a legitimate Taiwan republic does not exist on Formosa. The emergence of democracy does not create a Taiwan republic in the world community. (International) Law of recognition has not yet advanced to the ultimate point of making "popular sovereignty" become legally-biding as a customary practice of the "world democracy" at the United Nations.

February 9, 2009 dsilver@

china.5.harbin@ wrote:
Excellent analysis! It's either/or--either the rights of the individual are inviolable or they are not. If not, then the end of that road is Red China, or any other dictatorship. And Ayn Rand's “Atlas Shrugged” shows you how things slide down that road.

It's amazing to me that some of the other comments on this very clear article show zero understanding of even what the editorial's position is. Try actually thinking about things, guys.

"Ever since Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian plunged Taiwan into chaos ... "
What a ridiculous statement! I think it's very clear from this what the editorial's position is! A desire for the fuzzy warmth of the one-party rule of a dictatorship. No thank you very much.

February 9, 2009 j.coles54@

What allows the protection of the Pan Green "minority" is the result of their enduring struggle for liberty and human rights; this and this alone ensured the ideals written into the ROC constitution finally became a reality, just as Martin Luther King Jr. led the struggle so his minority could enjoy the freedoms that the US constitution guarantees all US citizens. Thus his statement: "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." How easily you forget the KMT's legacy of corruption and brutality.

February 9, 2009 zingwang888@

J coles54. Correction please. Did you ever read, listen or see the video at You Tube of Mr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his speech "I Have a Dream?" Mr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s only wish is that the negro American will stand equally side by side with the white American, any skin color or different religious sect without any racial discrimination. Mr. Martin Luther King Jr. did not incite rebellion against the government of the United State of America nor shouted Independence for Black Americans nor planned a State of Black American. That's why people all over the world respect and love Mr. Martin Luther King Jr. I do hope you research first about Mr. Martin Luther King Jr. before you post any comment.

February 10, 2009 jontte.heiskanen@

This editorial reveals more about the ideology of the paper than it understands democracy. I am waiting for more analytical writing about the historical perspective concerning your sentence "...Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian plunged Taiwan into chaos…"
For me it raises a question, what was the chaos like for several individuals on February 1946, or for an individual Annette Lu in 1979, compared to any individual during 1996-2008? Did this "chaos" during 1996-2008 cause anyone to be killed or put in jail because of making a speech or asking for the right to live? Please explain.

February 11, 2009 hhroman@

A restless society cannot flourish culturally nor economically, since everyone's busy discussing endless political issues instead of doing their jobs correctly! And no corporation would ever want to invest in such an unstable society. The reason why so many IT and computer industries invested in Taiwan during the 60's and 70's was precisely due to Taiwan's strict and stable society during the Chiang’s administrations. They don't care if you're a democracy or not, just as they don't care if China's a democracy or not today.

February 11, 2009 editor@

We must be reminded that Chiang Ching-kuo had already liberalized the island by lifting martial law. That was NOT Lee Teng-hui's contribution, the Green Camp to the contrary notwithstanding.

Secondly, that the government under Chiang Kai-shek allowed atrocities to occur only proves that Chiang Kai-shek should have obeyed the ROC Constitution. It is certainly not okay for him to depart from constitutionalism and the rule of law, just as Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian should not have departed from the rule of law and led ROC down the path of becoming an independent Nation of Taiwan.

March 25, 2009 america765@

LONG LIVE EMPEROR OBAMA!

Obama is a racial-minority individual and does not like racism:

I know it may be hard to believe, but there is absolutely no doubt about it: Ronald Wilson Reagan committed horrible, racist, hate crimes during his presidency.

A lot of people know about the infamy surrounding Ronald Wilson Reagan's former existence.

And a lot of people will know about Reagan's infamy--even until the end of human existence: they'll find out.

Numbers 32:23: "Be sure your sin will find you out."

Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., With the Highest Level of Academic Honors at Graduation, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

_________________
"If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never faded and they never got stale." Off the top of my head—it came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

March 26, 2009 cigars898@

america765@ wrote:
LONG LIVE EMPEROR OBAMA!

Obama is a racial-minority individual and does not like racism:

I know it may be hard to believe, but there is absolutely no doubt about it: Ronald Wilson Reagan committed horrible, racist, hate crimes during his presidency.

A lot of people know about the infamy surrounding Ronald Wilson Reagan's former existence.

And a lot of people will know about Reagan's infamy--even until the end of human existence: they'll find out.

Numbers 32:23: "Be sure your sin will find you out."

Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., With the Highest Level of Academic Honors at Graduation, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

_________________
"If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never faded and they never got stale." Off the top of my head—it came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

Committed horrible, racist, hate "crimes"? You make it sound so matter-of-fact, so smart guy 5 examples should be easy. I think you follow under the label of "drive by media.” If there's no doubt about it then why is it so hard to believe. Your subjective opinions do not translate into objective facts. So please list facts only.