I created the Time for Democracy website to confirm your suspicion that the governments of the United States aren't democracies--after I did the research to confirm my own suspicion.


On this website, the terms United States, United States of America, US and USA all refer to the 48 states between Canada and Mexico, plus Alaska and Hawaii.  The terms don't refer to the 30-something states north of Guatemala and south of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, though the 30-something former Spanish colonies have adopted the same terms for their collective.


The American Revolution failed to create a democracy because a significant number of revolutionaries were corrupt and the remainder--though they were good-faith democrats--were realists.  The forces against democracy were much stronger than the forces for democracy.  Good faith democrats had to use all the knowledge and intelligence they had to institute even the tiniest bit of democracy among the people of the earth.  In my opinion they did a good job.  They made a lot of compromises with their corrupt compatriots and the great foreign powers of their day.  But they also managed the paperwork in a manner that made the fundamental principles of democracy the dominant compact at the foundation of US governments; and all documents that violate the principles, invalid and void--not immediately but in the future when enough people had time to read the historical record and figure things out.


The American Revolution dissolved the dominion of the British monarch over US soil but retained and enlarged the power of the British lords to which British monarchs had delegated most of their power and granted most of the nation's land over the course of several centuries.


British lords and their friends among lesser people were able to perpetuate monarchical power in the absence of a monarch by the following devices. 


  • Use the same words in key concepts, compacts and legislation but change the definition.


  • Perpetuate the most undemocratic and obnoxious institutions of monarchy (courts and municipalities) and hope their victims wouldn't realize that democratic principles made them invalid.


It was easy to evade replacing monarchical principles with democratic principles because US founders had to be mealy-mouthed about declaring the principles.  The 1776 Declaration of Independence is the fundamental compact of US government.  There can be no US without it.  But the Declaration states many democratic principles in negative rather than positive terms.


Where the Declaration should say the people can be taxed only with their consent, it complains that the British king taxed them without representation.


US founders evaded clarifying what it is to tax people with consent or representation by refusing to define the two words.  You can read the historical record forever and you will never find a glossary that says consent is a synonym of representation and both words mean X.  But consent has always meant exactly one situation and no other.  If consent meant anything other than the clearly stated permission of the individual being acted on, it would be impossible to outlaw rape for being non-consentual.  To say that consent is permission granted by a parent, guardian, elected or appointed representative is to say that rape isn't rape if a father, foster parent, social worker, legislator, dictator, president of the block club, or leader of the barrio gangbangers says it's okay.


There's no equivocating what consent means.  The definition of representation is trickier.


Representation meant one thing for lords in the British monarchy.  It means exactly the same thing for the common people in the US democracy, but you'd never know it by how allegedly democratic government officials have carried on the 232 years after the British monarch ceded royal dominion and democracy should have been instituted to take its place.  (2015 -1783=232).


A series of transitions in the government of the people led to the debacle.  First people lived in families and a patriarch or matriarch ruled.  Eventually, the family became a clan and settled on a substantial swath of the earth's surface.  They had to fight with their lives to keep it.  Skilled warriors were essential to protect the remainder of the clan from annihilation and displacement.  Skilled warriors became tribal councils and they ruled.  If you had to study gang psychology to get a teaching degree then you know that men create institutions to get themselves a surrogate father to make up for the defects of their birth father.  The military is less about national defense and more about a private getting a sergeant to look up to.  Thus, a tribal council that could have reached decisions by consensus chose to become a 'military democracy.'  They elected a king to lead them in battle.  Hopefully, he was the best military tactician in the bunch.  But he also ruled in peacetime; and decreed sooner or later that kingships should be hereditary rather than elective.  The monarchies that resulted were puny.  If petty kings didn't join forces they couldn't defeat takedowns by kings near and far.  Little kings formed larger nations, deciding among themselves who would be the top king of the much greater swath of land they claimed in combination. 


(continued on page 2)

time for

democracy

top illustration:

Elliott, Elizabeth Shippen Green (artist). 

Woman seated near man with spectacles pointing at document.

in Janvier, Thomas A. (author).

The Recrudescence of Madame Vic.

Harper's magazine 112:513 (1906 March).

Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division

Washington, DC, USA

Card #cai1996001516/PP

Digital file 2a12983

petition for injunction against Cook County property tax

The website is a work in progress.

All texts are drafts.

The author takes it for granted that you can

say the same things better, and will.

introduction

practical applications

tutorials

references

THIS WEBSITE'S MAIN IDEA

City, county and state officials, employees and investors are to everyone else what the big bad wolf is to the three little pigs.  In relation to the homes of the people and unlike the wolf in the folk tale, who merely exploited the weaknesses of the materials the pigs used to build their little house, the patronage army and their guys in government have deliberately built the nation's homes weak enough to blow away with very little huffing and puffing.


The house built of wood is the house on which government has an alleged power to levy a tax and to seize the house for non-payment of the tax, though the unpaid tax is far less than either the assessed or actual market value of the house.  The house built of straw is the house built on the illusion or delusion that the common people have a power to limit the government spending that determines the amount of the potentially unaffordable tax on their homes.


The common people can secure their homes only when they stir themselves to learn the skills of the mason, as well as of the wolf.  Then the people can blow down improper laws built of straw, and make the law itself the bricks from which they build houses no one can break into or steal.

Materials are presented for educational purposes only.


I'm not a licensed attorney and  don't intend the materials presented here

to replace the services of licensed attorneys


I work alone on a small, fixed personal  income.  If you appreciate my work,

take advantage of it, and are able, please make a financial contribution.


Laurel Lee

Time For Democracy

Box 477235

1704 N. Milwaukee

Chicago, IL  60647-7235

updated 2015 September

reassessment appeal

2015

spreadsheet of assessments

A, B, and  C Streets